JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned for the State respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the decision of the State respondents in coming to a finding that the Technical Bid of the respondent no.3, for supply of Liquid Medical Oxigen (‘LMO’ in short) pursuant to the NIT dated 12.06.2024, was found to be responsive during the Technical Bid Evaluation Stage. The petitioners challenge to the State respondents finding that the Technical Bid of the respondent no.3 was responsive, is basically on the ground that the respondent no.3 did not have Past Experience for supplying LMO, in terms of Clause 4 of the NIT read with Clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions.

3. Clause 4 of the NIT and Clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions states as follows :

“Clause 4 of the NIT

Past Experience of Similar Services: The bidder must have successfully executed/completed similar Services Over the last three years i.e. the current fi