The court upheld the cancellation of a tender based on abnormal pricing, emphasizing the need for administrative fairness and the authority's discretion in tender processes.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Minutes of Meeting, being Memo No. CEUD/PLG/MS-414/2023-24, dated 29.02.2024, issued by the Chief Engineer, Urban Development and Housing, Itanagar and signed by the Surveyor of Works, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Itanagar and also the Notice Inviting Bids (2nd Call), dated 04.03.2024, issued by the Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing, Aalo Division.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Minutes of Meeting dated 29.02.2024, the e-tender invited, vide ID No. 2024_APUDH_1552_1, dated 13.01.2024 for the work “Infrastructure Development of Government Secondary School at Kamba” was cancelled and vide impugned Notice Inviting Bids (2nd Call) dated 04.03.2024, online item rate tender in double bid form, were invited from eligible enlisted contractors of APPWD, with appropriate level for the work “Infrastructure Development of Government Secondary School at Kamba” at an approximate value of Rs. 10,47,52,000.09/- only.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner, along with respondent No. 6, had participated in the tender process floated by the Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing, Aalo Division by a Notice Inviting Bid, on 13.01.2024, by which online item rate tender, in double bid form, were invited from eligible enlisted contractors of APPWD, with appropriate level for the work “Infrastructure Development of Government Secondary School at Kamba” at an approximate value of Rs. 10,47,52,000.09/-. Their technical bid became successful and thereafter, their financial bids were opened on 13.02.2024 and having carrying out detailed evaluation of the bid prices submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 6, a comparative statement of quotation was prepared, wherein the petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs. 9,00,86,720/-, which was the lowest among the two bidders. Thereafter, the respondent authorities, vide impugned Minutes of Meeting, dated 29.02.2024, had cancelled the Notice Inviting Bid, on 13.01.2024, for the aforesaid work i.e. “Infrastructure Development of Government Secondary School at Kamba”, on the ground that the petitioner”s firm and the firm of respondent No. 6 had quoted abnormal rate in the financial bid. Thereafter, immediately on 04.03.2024, the Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing, Aalo Division, had issued fresh Notice Inviting Bids (2nd Call) for the aforesaid work.

The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the minutes of meeting dated 29.02.2024, cancelling the e-tender and the Notice Inviting Bids dated 04.03.2024, calling for re-tender of the work as stated above, without specifying what was the abnormality in the rate and without providing the benefit of Clause 29.5 of the Standard Bidding Document to the petitioner, which requires that the employer should provide the bidder an opportunity to produce detailed price analysis for any or all items of the bill of quantities, to demonstrate the internal consistency of those prices with the construction method and schedule proposed, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, equity, good conscience, lack of administrative fairness, reasonableness and are in derogation of the legitimate expectation of the petitioner’s firm.”

5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand is being taken that the petitioner has quoted the rate 14% below from the tender document and major item like internal electrification and carrying item have been drastically varied from the approved