JUDGMENT :

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dewan, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals. Also heard Ms. M. Kechii, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for respondent Nos.2-8 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC, appearing for respondent No.1.

2. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and order rendered on 4/8/2021 by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.71/2020, WP(C) No.72/2020 and WP(C) No.94/2020, but confined to only two writ petitions. The WA No.328/2021 is preferred against the decision rendered in WP(C) No.94/2020 and the WA No.329/2021 is preferred against the decision rendered in WP(C) No.72/2020. As far as the WP(C) No.71/2020 is concerned the appellant has not preferred any appeal and as such, though the said common judgment and order was rendered in respect of three writ petitions i.e. WP(C) Nos.71/2020, 72/2020 & 94/2020, we are concerned only with the issues raised in WP(C) Nos.72/2020 and 94/2020.

3. Before we deal with the grounds raised in these appeals, certain background facts may be relevant to be mentioned.

3.1 A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was floated on 23/10/2019 for construction of number of roads under different packages in different districts of Nagaland including the work, namely, T-01(Botsa) to Sendenyu via Tsiemekhuma under Package No.NG0207A002 in Kohima district which is the subject matter in WA No.329/2021 [WP(C) No.72/2020] and another work, namely, T-01 to Lilen via Vonkitem under Package No.NG0901A012 in Peren district which is the subject matter in WA No.328/2021 [WP(C) No.94/2020].

As per the NIT, the bid process involves two stages, namely, Part-I - Technical Qualification Part of Bid, which consists of furnishing information relating to relevant parameters including qualification information, supporting documents, scanned copy of original affidavit and undertaking, which includes information relating to experience in works of similar nature and size for each of the last five years, and details of works in progress or contractually committed with certificates from the concerned officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent [Clause 4.2(c)].

Part-II consists of Technical-Financial Part of Bid, which also consists of (i) Form of Bid of Part-II of the bid as specified in Sec. 6 and (ii) Priced bill of quantities for items specified in Sec. 7. Sec. 6 refers to Technical Qualification Part-I of Bid and Sec. 7 refers to Bill of Quantities.

3.2 As provided under Clause 22 of the NIT, it has been mentioned that the file containing Part-I of the bid will be opened first. Clause 22.5 further provides that evaluation of Part-I of bids with respect to Bid Security, qualification information and other information furnished in Part-I of the bid pursuant to Clause 12.1 of ITB shall be taken and completed within five working days of the date of bid opening, and a list will be drawn up of the qualified bidders whose Part-II of bids are eligible for opening.

3.3 Clause 22.6 further provides that the result of evaluation of Part-I of the bids shall be made public on e-procurement systems following which there will be period of five working days during which any bidder may submit complaint which shall be considered for resolution before opening Part-II of the bid.

3.4 It may be noted that as regards submission of bids and evaluation of Part-I of bids, it appears that there was no issues raised, in fact, all the bidders including the appellant and the private respondent No.9 (respondent No.8 in the writ petition) were considered to be technically qualified. It may be also mentioned that it is specifically provided under Clause 25.1 of the ITB that during the detailed evaluation of Part-I of bids, the employer will determine whether each bid

(a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in Clauses 3 and