JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner seeking, inter Mia, setting aside of the impugned work order dated 15.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, i.e., the Director of Fisheries, Assam in favour of the respondent No. 6. A further direction has been sought for to award of the contract work published by a Detail Notice for Re-Invitation for Bids dated 10.5.2018 in favour of the petitioner contending that the bid of the petitioner was responsive on all aspects

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, it would be apposite to narrate the background facts, in brief, leading to the institution of the writ petition.

2.1 The respondent No. 3, i.e., the Director of Fisheries, Assam published a Press Notice dated 10.5.2018. Simultaneous to the Press Notice, a Detail Notice for Re-Invitation for Bids (‘the NIT) was also published on 10.5.2018 inviting e-tenders from eligible contractors of appropriate category, prescribed therein, for the work of “Renovation of Padum Pukhuri Fish Seed Farm, Morigaon under RIDF-XXI for 2016-2017” (‘the contract-work’). When the Press Notice/NIT was initially published/the estimated cost of the work was mentioned ais Rs. 1,11,33,365.00. Later on, by a corrigendum dated 28.5.2018, the estimated cost of the work was modified and enhanced to Rs. 1,15,57,298.93. The bidders were asked to submit their bids on-line in the e-procurement portal website, www.assamtenders.gov.in. As per the NIT, on-line mode of submission of technical bid and financial bid was mandatory. Apart from on-line submission of the bids, the bidders were also asked to submit hardcopies of their technical bids to the tendering authority. As per the bid document, a pre-bid meeting was scheduled before the last date of submission of the bids. It was stipulated in clause 5 of the NIT that the tendering authority would not accept rate/amount quoted by any bidder which is lower than 10% below the estimated cost to avoid poor quality) of work/abandoning of work by the contractor.

2.2 Insofar as the NIT dated 10.5.2018 is concerned, the petitioner considered himself to be eligible and qualified to participate in the competitive bidding process as per the modalities prescribed in the bid document which he had procured. In the competitive bidding process so initiated by the said NIT, a total of 10 Nos. of bidders participated. After expiry of the last date of submission of the bids, the technical bids of the participating bidders were opened on 6.6.2018. After opening of the technical bids, the technical bids were scrutinized and a statement about the technical bids was prepared and presented before the tender committee constituted for the purpose of evaluation of the technical bids. The tender committee held its meeting on 30.7.2018 in the office of the respondent No. 3 and after discussion, the tender committee had formulated a number of criteria for detailed evaluation of the technical bids. After formulating the criteria, the tender committee evaluated the technical bids of the participating bidders and declared 4 Nos. bids out of the 10 bids as technically qualified. The bids of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 and two other bidders were declared technically qualified. Thereafter, the tender committee decided to open the financial bids of the 4 technically qualified bidders on 4.8.2018. After having been technically qualified, the petitioner was expecting that at the stage of financial bid evaluation, he would emerge successful as he had quoted a competitive price for the contract-work.

2.3 On 15.10.2018, the tendering authority issued a formal work order for the contract-work in favour of the respondent No. 6 at its bid value of Rs. 1,04,01,569.04 which was declared to be 9.99% below the estimated cost. With the issuance of the formal work order, the respondent No. 6 was asked to sign the contract agreement by furnishing performanc