The court upheld that the re-evaluation of abnormally low bids by a constituted Sub-committee was proper, ensuring adherence to fair evaluation standards in public procurement processes.

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

1.Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. B. Phukan and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsels for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing counsel for the Power Department representing respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

2. The instant intra-Court writ appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 48(AP)/2025.

3. The facts of the case as projected in the instant writ appeal are that a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘NIT’) was issued on 17.01.2024 by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Arunachal Pradesh Electrical Division No. 2, Department of Power, Pasighat for development of distribution infrastructure at East Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh under Revamped Reforms-based and Results-linked, Distribution Sector Scheme on turnkey basis at the total estimated cost of the project at Rs. 65,46,10,958.44/- (Rupees Sixty Five Crore Forty Six Lakh Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Eight Forty Four Paisa).

4. Once the interested bidders procured the Standard Bidding Documents (SBD), a pre-bid meeting was held on 25.01.2024 in the office chamber of the aforesaid Superintending Engineer, wherein, all the prospective bidders were present. In the aforesaid meeting, it was decided that justified bid price range shall be as per the Memorandum dated 18.09.2023, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Power Department. On a query made by the bidders, it was intimated that while evaluating the price bids, Clause No. 36 under Section 3: Instructions to Bidders and Bid Data Sheet of SBD shall also be considered.

5. The last date of submission of the bid was on 01.02.2024, wherein, 7 (seven) bidders including the appellant as well as Respondent No. 1 submitted their respective bids. The techno- commercial bid was opened on 01.02.2024, wherein, 3 (three) bidders were found to be techno-commercially qualified. The appellant, Respondent No. 1 and one M/s Techno-Power Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Techno Power’) were qualified in the techno-commercial bid. Subsequently, the price bid of the techno-commercially qualified three bidders were opened on 21.02.2024, wherein, the appellant’s price was found to be abnormally low and the price bid of M/s Techno Power was declared as L1. Consequently, vide a letter dated 12.03.2024, the appellant was intimated by the office of the Superintending Engineer that it’s bid had been rejected due to the ground that it was abnormally low. Thereafter, the price bid of M/s Techno Power was recommended for acceptance and approval in terms of the aforesaid Government Memorandum dated 18.09.2023.

6. Immediately after receipt of the rejection, on the very same day, the appellant submitted a letter dated 12.03.2024, thereby requested the Superintending Engineer (E) to provide an opportunity to the appellant for submission of price justification as per the SBD. Thereafter, on 14.03.2024, a letter was issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), Central Electrical Zone, DoP, Itanagar to the Superintending Engineer (E), DoP, Pasighat stating that it had come to his attention that the firm quoting abnormally low amount had not been given any opportunity to justify their low quoted rate under Clause 36.2 of the SBD. It mentioned that it appeared that the tender opening committee rejected the bid under Clau