JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SR Boruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause 29(IV) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), a bid value beyond 10% below the estimated amount cannot be considered and would have to be rejected as non-responsive.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s bid was exactly 10% below the estimated price. However, the bid value of the respondent No.3 was beyond 10% below the estimated price, i.e., by 43 paise.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the bid of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 and one other tenderer Harshajit Roy, who is not a party to the case, are as follows:-

Petitioner (L3) - Rs.10298700.00

Harshajit Roy (L2) - Rs.10298699.99

Respondent No. 3 (L-1)- Rs.10298699.57

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the bid of the respondent No. 3 was lower than 10% below the estimated amount by 43 paise, the said bid amount would have to be rejected as nonresponsive, in terms of Clause 29(IV) of the NIT. Similarly, would be the fate of the bid of Harshajit Roy, whose bid was lower than 10% b