JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to place on record letter of award passed in favour of respondent No.2 before this Hon'ble Court; and/or

ii. Issue writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the said award issued in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1; and/or

iii. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the financial bid of respondent No.2 declared vide notification dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure P-6); and/or

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to issue the letter of award in favour of petitioner; and/or

v. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the entire tender process; and/or

vi. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to re advertise the tender in question;”

2. Respondent by way of two-bid system invited offers through Request for Proposal/Notice Inviting Bid (for short “RFP/NIB”), dated 15.06.2021 for construction of “2 Lane Road Tunnel” parallel to the existing Dhalli Tunnel under the Shimla Smart City Mission on EPC mode with estimated cost of Rs.53 crores. Petitioner and respondent No.2, in response to RFP/NIB dated 15.06.2021, submitted their respective bids. Both the bidders were declared technically responsive, their financial bids were evaluated on 2.8.2021 and Respondent No.2 was found “L-1”. Letter of acceptance (for short “LOA”) favouring respondent No.2 was issued on 12.08.2021.

3. On 3.8.2021, petitioner addressed respondent No.1, inter alia, taking exception to the financial bid of respondent No.2 being not in the format prescribed by RFP/NIB. Petitioner further extended certain clarification with respect to its own financial bid vis-a-vis the GST component. Respondent No.1 did not agree to the objections raised by the petitioner, and, replied to this effect vide correspondence dated 5.8.2021. Some further correspondence was exchanged inter se the petitioner and respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 adhered to its decision and issued LOA in favour respondent No.2, as noticed above.

4. The entire edifice of the case of the petitioner has been built on the premise that RFP/NIB specifically provided for a format in which the bidders were required to submit their respective bids. As per petitioner, the condition of RFP/NIB to the effect that the bids were to be submitted in a specified format was imminent and admitted of no exception. The petitioner has also contended that initially there was no requirement in RFP/NIB for the bidders to submit their financial quotes by including GST and other applicable taxes, cess etc., and it was only by way of “Corrigendum-1” incorporated in RFP/NIB through amendment dated 6.7.2021, that bidders were mandated to quote their financial bids by including GST and its incidence. The petitioner has taken exception to the fact that respondent No.2 did not submit its financial bid in the manner required by Corrigendum-1, dated 6.07.2021 and it was only after the petitioner raised objections, that respondent No.1 afforded opportunity to respondent No.2 to rectify its mistake/omission by confirming that bid price quoted by it, included component of GST at the rate of 12%.

5. Petitioner has further alleged that the terms of RFP/NIB specifically prohibited any correspondence between the employer and the bidders, whereas, the violation of such prohibition was evident from the fact that respondent No.1 after having received written objections dated 3.08.2021 from the petitioner had ventured into seeking clarification on material aspect of the tender from respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, it was this conduct of respondent No.1 that gave undue advantage to respondent No.2 to make good the deficiencies in the financial bid.

6. Respondent No.1 in its reply has contested the stand of th