The decision-making process of the authority can be subject to judicial review, and interference is warranted if the decision is found to be palpably arbitrary and unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter No. 2863 dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) whereby the work order issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 2750 dated 12.10.2019 pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.12.2018 (published on website on 02.12.2018) for providing security services in Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS), Kanke, Ranchi has been cancelled by the respondent No.3 on the basis of the direction issued by the respondent No.2. Further prayer has been made for quashing letter No. 1102(6) dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby a direction was issued to the respondent No.3 to cancel the said work order issued in favour of the petitioner and consequently to cancel the NIT issued vide Bidding Document No. DIR/09/11/2018-19 dated 01.12.2018 by the respondent No.3 for selection of agency to provide security services in RINPAS, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to act as an agency for providing security services in RINPAS, Ranchi especially in view of the fact that the petitioner was duly selected pursuant to a valid tender process and an agreement dated 10.10.2019 to that effect was already executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the fresh NIT dated 01.11.2019 which has been issued by the respondent No.3 for selection of an agency to provide security services in RINPAS, Ranchi.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the respondent No.3 issued NIT dated 01.12.2018 (published on website on 02.12.2018) for selection of an agency to provide security services in RINPAS, Ranchi. The petitioner along with the other two bidders (the respondent Nos. 4 & 5) participated in the said tender process and all the three bidders were declared technically qualified. Thereafter, a decision was taken to open the price bids of the successful bidders. Subsequently, in the meeting of the Purchase Sub-Committee, RINPAS, Ranchi held on 28.02.2019, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. However, the respondent No.5 raised objection with respect to declaration of the petitioner as L-1 bidder whereupon the Purchase Sub-Committee took a decision to seek clarifications from the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Accordingly, two separate letters were issued by the respondent No.3 vide letter Nos. 725 & 726 (both dated 06.03.2019) to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 respectively directing them to submit their justifications as to on what ground they were claiming that the petitioner was not the lowest bidder. In the said letters, the respondent No.3 also directed the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to give breakup of the rates quoted by them including the contribution of employer share as well as employee share towards EPF and ESIC. Further, explanations were sought vide aforesaid letters from the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 as to why they had not filled the mandatory column of ‘Other Charges’ in the Price Bid. Pursuant to the said letters, the respondent No.5 submitted its reply admitting that it had not separately quoted the amounts pertaining to the contributions towards EPF and ESIC and claimed that the rate quoted by it was an inclusive rate adding the said EPF and ESIC contribution in Price Bid as total cost per head / per month. Thereafter, the Purchase Sub-Committee held a meeting on 25.07.2019 and unanimously declared the petitioner as L-1 bidder stating inter alia that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had not separately quoted the charges towards EPF and ESIC contributions in the Price Bid and had also not filled up the column of ‘Other Charges’. The respondent No.5 made certain complains before the Secretary, Health, Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi-respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioner was not the lowest bidder a