The court upheld the award of a contract based on public interest considerations, affirming that deviations from tender procedures do not necessarily invalidate the process if no responsive competitors exist.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents and Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the recommendation of the financial bid dated 06.06.2025, by the Financial Bid Evaluation Board in favor of the private respondent No.5. The writ petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm/contractor, having its place of business at Liromoba, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner is a registered Class-III contractor, bearing registration No. CEAP(CSQ)/W-48/2018-19/III/306, which was re-validated for a further period of 5 (five) years w.e.f. 28.12.2023, issued by the Chief Engineer (CSQ), Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

3. In response to the NIT, being NIT No.WS/RD/NW/2025-26/5, dated 08.05.2025, for supply of item rate tender from eligible and registered Class II and Class III contractors for the work, “supply of material under MGNREGA 2025-26 CD Block Liromoba”, at an estimated cost of Rs.3,00,00,000/-(Rupees three crores), the petitioner, being an eligible contractor submitted his bids. A total of 6 (six) bidders including the writ petitioner and the private respondent participated in the tender process. During the technical bid evaluation, certain defects and anomalies were found in the technical bid documents of the private respondent No.5, but the said technical bid of private respondent was not rejected despite these defects. Aggrieved by the recommendation of the private respondent No. 5 in the technical bid evaluation, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authorities, seeking proper examination of the irregularities and necessary action in accordance with the norms and guidelines of the Department. However, the same has not been considered by the respondent authorities.

4. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened on 06.06.2025 and the same was evaluated by the Financial Bids Evaluation Members and thereafter, a comparative statement was also prepared. As per the financial bids comparative statement, the petitioner had quoted Rs.2,67,29,697/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven) only which is (-) 10.90% below the justified rates. Whereas, the respondent No.5 had quoted Rs.2,71,07,478/- (Rupees Two Crore Seven One Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Eighty) only which is (-) 9.64% below the justified rates. Accordingly, the Financial Bids Evaluation Committee in their minutes accepted the financial bid of the private respondent No.5 as L-1 and recommended the respondent No.5 to the tender committee for award of the contract. The Board Members rejected the financial bids of other bidders including that of the petitioner, purportedly, under the rules laid down in the CPWD Works Manual, 2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recommendation of the respondent No.5 by the Financial Bids Evaluation Committee is contrary to the special conditions contained in the bid documents. It is submitted that under Clause 14(i) of the Special terms and conditions to bidders, the tender shall be evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee and it shall recommend at least 3 (three) firms i.e.,L-1, L-2 and L-3to the competent authority for acceptance along with the relevant documents. But in the present case, although