The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.

Judgment :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned Standing counsel, Rural Development Department, for the appellants in WA No. 20(AP)/2026 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 21(AP)/2026. Also heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in WA No. 20(AP)2026 and for the respondent No. 5 in WA No. 21(AP)/2026.

2. These 2 (two) intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 243/2025 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been allowed by holding that the bid of the writ petitioner is within the permissible limit provided under Clause 20.4.3.2 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014, thereby directing the respondent authorities to award the contract in favour of the writ petitioner.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the Project Director, Department of Rural Development, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, the respondent No. 4 herein, issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 11.04.2025 inviting bids from eligible Class-II contractors for “supply and procurement of materials under MGNREGA 2025–26” in respect of CD Block, Chetam, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo (Package–VIII). The estimated cost of the work is Rs. 5,36,45,700/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty-Six Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred only). Pursuant to the said NIT, three firms including the Appellant in WA No. 21(AP)/2026 and petitioner/Respondent No. 1 & 5 participated in the tender process. The technical bids were opened on 30.04.2025 and the financial bids were opened on 01.05.2025. Upon evaluation of the financial bids, it was found that M/s L. Y.

Enterprises, Respondent No. 1 & 5 herein and the writ petitioner in writ petition, had quoted the lowest amount of Rs. 4,82,81,129.93 (Rupees Four Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Nine and Paise Ninety Three only), whereas the appellant No. 2 herein had quoted Rs. 4,97,22,889.85 (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine and Paise Eighty Five only). However, the Tender Evaluation Board found that the bid quoted by the Respondent No. 1 & 5/writ petitioner was -10% below the estimated cost put to tender and considering the same to be an unworkable rate, did not accept the said bid notwithstanding it was the L-1 bid. Consequently, the bid of the appellant No. 2 was forwarded for approval vide order dated 02.05.2025.

4. Being aggrieved by the approval of the bid of the appellant No. 2, for award of the work, M/s L. Y. Enterprises preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 243/2025 challenging the Board decision and forwarding for approval dated 02.05.2025. In the meantime, the Department issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour of the appellant No. 2. The appellant No. 2, thereafter submitted the requisite performance guarantee before the authorities. In the writ petition, petitioner/Respondent No. 1 & 5 contended that although its bid was below -10% of the justified rate, the same could be accepted in terms of Clause 20.4.3.2 of the CPWD Works Manual. It was alleged that the rejection of its bid was at the behest of political influence and on extraneous considerations.

5. The State respondents/appellant filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations and specifically stating that the bid of the writ petitioner, being -10% below the estimated cost, was found non-responsive. It is also stated that a justified rate had been prepared for the package of work and since the bid of the writ petitioner was admittedly below the justified rate, the same