The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for recording reasons for peculiar situations and special circumstances in awarding contracts, as mandated by the communication dated 27.07.2020 and the corrigendum dated 23.01.2021. The judgment emphasizes the importance of fairness and compliance with tender conditions in contract awards.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside and quashing the impugned communications dated 07.06.2021, 17.06.2021 and 18.06.2021 as well as also for a writ in the nature of Mandamus not to give effect to the said communications and for a direction to offer Contract Work in question being the Roadside Plantation (Avenue & Median) of the National Highway at NH- 31(C)(New 27) stretch – from Km 993 to 1003 of AS08, against package No.2 in favour of the Petitioner in terms with the Tender, as well as also restraining the Respondents from allowing the Respondent No.7 to execute the Contract Work against the package No.2 of Roadside Plantation (Avenue & Median) of National Highway at NH-31(C)(New 27) stretch – from Km 993 to 1003 of AS08.

2. The facts involved in the instant writ petition as could be seen from the pleadings on record are that the Respondent No.6 had issued a tender notice dated 11.01.2021 inviting online bids from eligible bidders for settlement of different packages including Package No.2 of Roadside Plantation (Avenue & Median) of National Highway at NH-31(C)(New 27) stretch – from Km 993 to 1003 of AS08. The total value of the work including all taxes was Rs.2,56,64,070/-. The said tender notice was published in various newspapers on 13.01.2021.

3. It is relevant to take note of that as per the said tender notice, the last date for downloading the tender was 01.02.2021 but it was extended upto 05.02.2021 by corrigendum dated 23.01.2021 in respect to all the packages i.e. package Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. Further to that in the said corrigendum, some of the conditions were modified including the experience of the bidder in Plantation and Nursery Works. It is notable for the purpose of the instant writ petition that in the corrigendum dated 23.01.2021, at Clause-6 an additional term was inserted as a tender condition. The said Clause-6 being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:

“6. Please also add & read as - in tender conditions that – (I) Variation of the quoted price up to 5 % (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost may be allowed. (II) Variation of the quoted price/rate up to 10% (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost may be allowed for peculiar situations and in special circumstances. (III) Tenders beyond 10% (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost shall not be accepted.”

4. From the above quoted Clause-6, it reveals that the variation of the quoted price up to 5 % (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost may be allowed. Further to that, variation of the quoted price/rate up to 10% (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost may also be allowed for peculiar situations and in special circumstances. However, tenders beyond 10% (positive or negative) over the approved estimate cost shall not be accepted.

5. The Petitioner thereupon submitted its tender along with various other bidders. The Technical bid was opened on 06.02.2021 and the Financial bid was opened on 17.02.2021. Accordingly, on the basis of the said Technical bid and the Financial bid, the Tender Committee prepared a comparative statement of all the participating bidders. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent No.6, vide a communication dated 25.02.2021 forwarded the comparative statements of both Technical and the Financial bids against package No.2 to the Respondent No.5 for necessary steps in the matter. It is pertinent to mention that in the forwarding letter dated 25.02.2021 of the Respondent No.6, it was stated that all the 8 tenders were found valid in technical capabilities and the bidders under Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have offered the rate below 5% from the estimated cost. The tenderer at Serial No.4 i.e. the Respondent No.7 had offered the rate as 10% below from the estimated cost and the tenderer at Serial No.6 had offered rate as 9.99% below. It was also mentioned in the said communication that