IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide actions.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J. ) :

Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the respondents State and Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.8.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(i) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of decision of Tender Evaluation Committee dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure-4) with respect to e-Tender Reference No.BCD/BCHZB/ RAMGARH/016/2023-24 whereby NIT has been issued for construction of 6 ACR in UPG High School, Tapin, Mandu Block, District Ramgarh opened without giving intimation of date and time of opening of tender to any of the bidders and wherein technical bid of besides others that of respondent no.8 has been declared to be found in order ignoring the fact that in his bid respondent no.8 has furnished one EMD for Rs.30,000/- pledged to Executive Engineer, BCD, Building Division, Ramgarh (respondent no.6) which was already pledged to some other department i.e. to Executive Engineer Electrical, Electrical Work Division, Ranchi and also the EMD pledged by respondent no.8 was not in accordance with the terms and condition of NIT;

(ii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of BOQ summary details uploaded online showing respondent no.8 as L-1 in the said tender as opening of his financial bid itself is bad in view of the fact that the technical bid of respondent no.8 was not in order and as such his financial bid ought not to have been opened.

(iii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus for allotment of work to the petitioner who has qualified in technical bid and in financial bid he has been declared L-2 and as such in absence of respondent no.8 he is the lowest bidder;

AND

Pending final hearing of the instant writ petition respondents concern may be restrained from allotting work to respondent no.8 and to enter into any agreement with respondent no.8 for the work in question.

AND/OR

For issuance of such other writ(s)/Rule(s)/Order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing complete justice to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the facts reveal that the petitioner is a contractor duly registered vide registration certificate dated 06.10.2021 with the Building Construction Department in Category-II for the period 23.09.2021 to 22.09.2026. The e-Procurement Cell of the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Hazaribagh had published a Notice Inviting Tender being e-Tender Reference No. BCD/BCHZB/ RAMGARH/016/2023-24 dated 04.07.2023 for construction of 6 ACR in UPG High School, Tapin, Mandu Block, District Ramgarh. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 68,14,116.00 and the earnest money was fixed at Rs. 1,36,300.00. The tender was for Category-II contractors. It has been stated that the petitioner had participated in the tender along with other eligible contractors and though the Tender Evaluation Committee had failed to open the tender on the appointed day of 15.07.2023, but it was opened subsequently on 4.8.2023 and the bids of four participants were found in order: (i) Arun Kumar Kushwaha, Ramgarh (petitioner); (ii) M/s Wahadar Construction, Hazaribag; (iii) Vijay Kumar Singh (respondent no.8) and (iv) M/s Shree Balaji Eng. Co., Ramgarh. In the financial bid, which was opened the respondent no.8 was declared the L-1 bidder while the petitioner was declared the L-2 bidder and the respondent no.8 has been selected for the work in question.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the technical bid of the respondent no.8 should have been rejected at the very threshold. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 5.1 and 5.2 of the NIT while submi