Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

These appeals are directed against the order dated 8th July, 2013, passed by the learned single Judge, in and by which the learned single Judge, on the prima facie finding and in view of the larger public interest involved, while taking into account the huge loss to the exchequer due to the vast difference in the amounts quoted by the various parties and the rate at which the contract had been awarded, had granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings, aggrieved by which the respective respondents are before this Court by filing the writ appeals assailing the said order.

2. Against the said interim order, while the respective respondents therein had filed the present appeals, this Court, on 19.11.2013, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants felt that since the matter touches upon the merits of the main writ petitions itself, it would be prudent to tag the writ petitions along with these writ appeals and dispose of the same as that would give a quietus to the matter, to which course of action, the learned counsel on either side did not have any objection. Therefore, the writ petitions on the file of the learned single Judge were directed to be tagged along with the writ appeals to be heard at one go. Accordingly, all the matters are placed before this Court for hearing.

3. The brief factual matrix, shorn of unnecessary details, is culled out hereunder :-

Notice Inviting Tenders (for short 'NIT') dated 28.6.2010, inviting tenders for preparation of Smart Cards for the purpose of issue of Driving License and Registration Certificates pertaining to 58 Regional Transport Offices and 49 Unit Offices on Build, Operate, Own and Transfer basis (for short 'BOOT') was floated by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner, M/s. Smart Chip, forming a consortium with one M/s. Versatile Cards Technology Pvt. Ltd., submitted its bid.

4. Similarly, bids were submitted by the consortium of M/s. BonTon Software Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. M-Tech Innovations Ltd., M/s. Madras Security Printers and by a few other bidders. It is further averred by the petitioner that the NIT did not contain any information with regard to the date, time and place of opening of the technical and price bids. However, the bids were to be opened in the presence of the bidders as provided in Clause 22.1. and 22.4 of the NIT and that the bidders were informed that the date and time as regards the opening of the technical and financial bids would be intimated, which never happened. It is further averred that clause 27 of the tender document details the procedure for determination of the lowest evaluated price bid. It is further averred by the petitioner that Clause 12 of the Tender Document prescribes the eligibility criteria, which eligibility the petitioner as also its consortium partner duly satisfy.

5. It is averred by the petitioner that though the petitioner and respondent No.4 alone satisfy the eligibility criteria as provided in Clause 12, however, with mala fide intentions and in an arbitrary manner, the tender was awarded to an ineligible person, viz., the consortium of 3rd and 6th respondent herein, who fail to satisfy the eligibility condition Nos. 2, 5 & 6 provided in Clause 12 (i) of the NIT.

6. It is further averred by the petitioner that as against the amount of Rs.197.51 Crores quoted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has quoted an initial amount of Rs.389.80 Crores and this exorbitant price was accepted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to succeed in their sinister design to award the tender to the 3rd respondent, which action is wholly arbitrary, illegal and is in utter violation of laws, rules, principles of fairness, equality, justice and transparency. The petitioner further averred that even the final negotiated price of the 3rd respondent at Rs.293,72,80,000/- is higher by Rs.96,21,80,000/- to that of the amount quoted by the petitioner. This action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in awarding the tender to th