The court emphasized adherence to procedural guidelines in tender processes, ruling that decisions must comply with established legal standards to prevent arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by means of this petition, whereby, a challenge has been made to the decision to allot a particular work to the Respondent No. 9 in a tender process. The petitioner has alleged that such allotment, apart from being grossly illegal and arbitrary, is also wholly opposed to the interest of public service.

2. As per the facts projected in the petition, a Notice-Inviting Tender was floated by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Department of Power, Pasighat, for electrification work in East Siang District. The name of the work in the said NIT, dated 17.01.2024 was “Development of Distribution Infrastructure in East Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh under the Revamped Reforms-Based and Results-linked, Distribution Sector Scheme”. The petitioner, which claims itself to be eligible in all respects, had procured the Standard Bidding Document and had participated its bid. On 25.01.2024, a Pre-Bid meeting was held in the office chamber of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Department of Power, Pasighat, wherein, the representatives of all the prospective bidders were present. In the said meeting, it was decided to consider justified range as per the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, while evaluating price bids in conformity with Clause 36 of the Standard Bidding Document.

3. The petitioner has brought on record the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, issued by the Department of Power of the State, whereby, guidelines were laid down, which were to be followed by the said Department in the matter of tender, evaluation and award. For ready reference, the relevant clause of the said Memorandum is extracted herein below:

“4. Justified bid price ranges category-wise: To weed out unrealistically very low and excessively high and obstructive biddings, the justified ranges of bid prices of materials and works as determined for respective category-wise areas shall have to be adopted and adhered to in the bid evaluation processes of tenders, and the contract award thereof for execution in the Department of Power, as contained in the following respective annexures:

a. Category-I at Annexure-I

i. …

ii. …

….

v. Pasighat Electrical Division ….’

‘5. Validity of Justified Bid Price Ranges: The Justified Bid Price Ranges provided herein as above shall be valid for the bids of the tenders floated and processed for award during the Current Financial Year, i.e., 2023-24.’

….”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that 7 (seven) numbers of bidders had initially submitted their bids and 3 (three) could qualify in the Techno- Commercial Evaluation, including the petitioner and the respondent No. 9. It may be mentioned that one, M/s Techno Power Enterprises was the third bidder. The price bids of the technically responsive 3 (three) bidders were opened on 21.02.2024 and the price bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected being abnormally low and the bid of M/s Techno Power Enterprises was declared as L-1. The Office of the Superintending Engineer had, thereafter,