Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with scope of judicial review of administrative action of State in matter of awarding a contract.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate Page No.# 3/12 General, Assam assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Raj Kamal along with Mr. Anurag Chandra and Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court assailing the LoI dated 23.03.2022 issued by the respondent authority viz., Guwahati Smart City Limited (GSCL) in favour of the Joint Venture (JV) of respondent Nos.5 and 6 awarding the contract in question. The facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the filing of this writ petition may be briefly noticed as follows.

3. The GSCL had floated an NIT dated 31.12.2021 inviting bids for awarding the contract viz., “Concept, Design, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Permanent Decorative Lighting, Musical Sprays, Multifaceted Spectacle on Turnkey Basis with Operation & Maintenance for 3 years period at Srimanta Sankardev Kalakshetra, Guwahati (Assam)”. The estimated cost of the project was shown as 12 crores and the date of submission of tender was fixed on 21.01.2022, which was later extended upto 27.01.2022. In response to the NIT dated 31.12.2021 the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, as a Joint Venture, had submitted their bid. Likewise, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had also formed a Joint Venture and submitted their bid in response to the NIT dated 31.12.2021. The tender was to be considered in two parts viz., technical and financial bid. Upon opening the bids submitted by the parties both the bidders were found to be technically qualified. The financial bid of the JV of the writ petitioners was also found to be the lowest. As such, Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 02.03.2022 was issued in favour of the writ petitioners awarding the contract to them. However, on the very next day i.e. on 03.03.2022 the respondent No.2 had issued an order keeping the said LoI in abeyance. Subsequently, on 07.03.2022, the NIT was cancelled and thereafter, a re-tender notice for the same work was issued on 08.03.2022. In response to the NIT (re-tender) dated 08.03.2022 the JV of the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.5 and 6, besides another bidder viz., Modern State Services had submitted their tenders. Upon opening the technical bids, the bid submitted by the writ petitioners JV as well as the JV of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were both found to be technically valid whereas the technical bid of the 3rd bidder viz. Modern State Services was rejected on technical ground. Thereafter, the financial bids were opened and it was found that the JV of the writ petitioners had quoted an amount of Rs.8,60,01,164/- whereas the JV of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had quoted an amount of Rs.8,28,21.470/-. Consequently, the price bid of the JV of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was assessed to be the L1 bidder and the LoI dated 23.03.2022 was issued in their favour awarding the contract.

4. The decision of the respondent No.2 in issuing the LoI dated 23.03.2022 in favour of the JV of respondent Nos.5 and 6 has been assailed in this writ petition primarily on the ground that in respect of Item No.1.75 of the Bill of Quantities (BoQ) in the Request For Proposal (RFP) pertaining to the financial bid the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had not quoted any rate and had left the same blank. According to the writ petitioners, by failing to quote any price against Item No.1.75 of the BoQ and by leaving the space blank, the JV of respondent Nos.5 and 6 have deviated from the standard instructions for submitting financial bid as laid down in RFP. It is the case of the writ petitioners that due to their failure to quote any figure against Item No.1.75 of BoQ, the financial bid submitted by the JV of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was defective and hence, ought to have been rejected by the respondents. The petitioners have, the