Point of Law: It is a settled law that author of tender document would be best person to interpret various clauses of tender.

JUDGMENT :

The issue of maintaining transparency and fairness in matters of distribution of State largesse has once again been raised by means of the present writ petitions. While the petitioners allege that by misinterpreting certain clauses of the tender document there has been violation of the established principles of law pertaining to distribution of State largesse, the version of the respondents is that the clauses of the bid document have been correctly interpreted and no infirmity or illegality has been committed in the process and therefore there is no requirement of any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

2. Before going to the issue which is required to be adjudicated, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

3. Three numbers of writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner with regard to a notice inviting tender dated 17.01.2022 issued by the Assam Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Mission for procurement of Evaluation and Practice books. There are three categories in the said supply, namely, supplies for Class I and II [WP(C)/1876/2022], Class V [WP(C)/1878/2022] and Class VI &VIII[WP(C)/1877/2022].

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it has got a manufacturing plant in the State of Andhra Pradesh to manufacture notebooks, colour print etc. and was eligible for participation in the aforesaid tender process. The petitioner had participated in the aforesaid tender process for all the three categories. The petitioner expected that it being an experienced and reputed manufacturer of notebooks etc., it would be allotted the works. However, the Tender Evaluation Committee vide the minutes dated 25.02.2022 had rejected the bid of the petitioner as being technically non-responsive. In the said evaluation, the bids of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were held to be technically responsive.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that by wrong interpretation of the qualification criteria appearing in Section VI-A, the decision to hold the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive has been taken. The petitioner alleges that there is misinterpretation of Clauses 3 (vi)(x)(xi) of Section VI-A read with Clause 11.2(a) of bid document. The writ petitions have accordingly been filed by challenging the note dated 25.02.2022.

6. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the protection made by the petitioner in these three cases are not correct. The very allegation on which the writ petition has been structured, namely, misinterpretation of the clauses of Section VI-A of the bid document is incorrect. The respondents further contended that the technical bid of the petitioner was not supported by valid documents and therefore the rejection of the bid of the petitioner on at the stage of technical evaluation was correctly done.

7. This Court has been apprised that though a prayer was made for an interim order on the ground that at the time of filing of the writ petition, no final orders of allotment was issued, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.03.2022 was not inclined to pass a blanket order of stay and had made an observation that all further action would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. This Court has also been apprised that against the order dated 15.03.2022 of the learned Single Judge, the present petitioners had preferred three numbers of writ appeal, being WA/139/2022, WA/157/2022 and WA/158/2022 in which the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed an order dated 27.05.2022 whereby the matters were remitted back to the learned Single Judge. However an observation was made that no bills are to be released to the suppliers till the disposal of the writ petition. It has been informed that thereafter, final orders of supply were issued and the learned counsel for the private respondents have informed that the supplies have been done in terms of the contract. In fact, three numbers of Interlocutory Applications have been filed by the private res