IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the award of contracts should be in public interest and not interfered with unless there is evidence of malafide or irrationality.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned Standing counsel, Rural Development Department for the Official respondents and Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.

2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to a Letter of Intent (LOI), dated 08.01.2024, issued by the respondent no. 2, i.e. the Director, Rural Development Department, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh to the respondent no. 8 for procurement of materials under MGNREGA works 2023-24 for CD-Block, Nyapin, Kurung Kumey District.

3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceedings is noticed, herein-below:

The Joint Director, Department of Rural Development, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued a Notice Inviting Tender, dated 31.10.2023 inviting bids from firms fulfilling the eligibility criteria for supply and procurement of materials pertaining to MGNREGA works-2023-24 for CD-Block, Nyapin, Kurung Kumey District. The estimated cost was reflected as Rs. 4,27,05,016.00/- (Rupees Four Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Five Thousand Sixteen). The petitioner as well as the respondent no. 8 having fulfilled the requisite eligibility criterias, submitted their bids along with other four eligible firms in pursuance to the said NIT, dated 31.10.2023. It is projected in the writ petition that the technical bid of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 8 and other firms having found to have satisfied the eligibility criteria, the financial bids of the bidders participating in the tender process were opened on 11.12.2023 by the Board as constituted by the Project Director-cum-ADPC, DRDA, Kurung Kumey District. The said Board on consideration of bids so received proceeded to recommend the petitioner firm as the L-1 bidder and the respondent no. 8 firm as the L-3 bidder. The said recommendation as made, was thereafter, placed before the Director, Rural Development, wherein, after further scrutiny, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Director, Rural Development proceeded to issue a Letter of Intent (LOI), dated 08.01.2024, in favour of the respondent no. 8 for the work in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of the NIT, the tender is to be scrutinised by the District Level Committee as constituted by the jurisdictional PD-cum-ADPC and the said recommendations are thereafter, forwarded for acceptance before the respondent no. 2. The District Level Board having recommended the petitioner firm for award of the work after having determined the bid as submitted by it to be the lowest, the respondent no. 2 could not have ignored such recommendations and issue the LOI in question, thereby awarding the work to the respondent no. 8.

5. Mr. Taba by relying upon the Minutes of the Board Proceeding Meeting, dated 11.12.2023, has submitted that the Board had considered all relevant factors and it was only thereafter, that the petitioner firm was declared as the lowest bidder (L-1) and the tender conditions requiring the respondent no. 2 to accept such recommendation made, a deviation from the process as prescribed was not called for in the matter.

6. Mr. Taba by referring to the contentions raised by the respondents in the matter submits that the purported subsequent, scrutiny as carried out at the level of the Director, Rural Development, was so carried out to favour the respondent no. 8 and no such power was vested with the respondent no. 2 to further scrutinise the recommendations made by the District Level authorities. Mr. Taba further by referring to the provisions of Clause-8 (xxiii) of the terms and conditions of the tender submits that the bid as submitted by the respondent no. 8 being beyond the permissible variation limit of 10% as prescribed under the conditions of the tender, the bid of the respondent no. 8 was not acceptable and the same should have been r