JUDGMENT :

S.C. Parija, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the authorities (opposite party Nos. 2 to 4) in finalizing the tender for the work "Improvement of Sundar Irrigation Project, Jadamunda, under the Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project (DRIP) for the year 2015-16", in favour of opposite party No. 6. The brief facts of the case as detailed in the writ petition are that the Chief & Basin Manager, Tel Basin, Bhawanipatna, in the Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha, issued E-Procurement Notice/Invitations for Bids (IFB) through National Competitive Bidding, inviting Item Rate Bids in double cover system for the work "Improvement of Sundar Irrigation Project, Jadamunda, under the Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project (DRIP) for the year 2015-16". The approximate value of the work was Rs. 593.28 lakhs.

2. Pursuant to such Invitation for Bids, the petitioner along with 8 other bidders, including the opposite party No. 6, participated in the said tender process. On 14.10.2015 the technical bid was opened and the bid documents submitted by the bidders were scrutinised and it was found that all the 9 bidders have technically qualified. Subsequently, on 06.11.2015 the price bid was opened in presence of all the bidders and it was found that the present petitioner along with one BKD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were the lowest bidders (L1) and the opposite party No. 6 was the second lowest bidder (L2), as per the price bid summary uploaded in the official website. However, on 09.11.2015, the Chief & Basin Manager, Tel Basin, Bhawanipatna (opposite party No. 2) intimated the Superintending Engineer, Western Irrigation Circle, Bhawanipatna (opposite party No. 3), that the rate quoted by the opposite party No. 6 amounting to Rs. 5,04,31,685.90 being 14.995% less than the amount put to tender of Rs. 5,93,27,983/-, the bid submitted by opposite party No. 6 is approved, taking single digit decimal into consideration as per Clause-4 of the bid document. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Nuapada Irrigation Division (opposite party No. 4) was instructed to execute agreement with the opposite party No. 6, he being the 1st lowest bidder.

3. The case of the petitioner is that as his bid was found to be the lowest along with one BKD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., as per the price bid summary uploaded in the official website, the subsequent decision of the Chief & Basin Manager (opposite party No. 2), to accept the bid of opposite party No. 6 as the 1st lowest and approve the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to set aside the decision of opposite party No. 2 in approving the award of the contract work in favour of opposite party No. 6 and to award the same in favour of the petitioner.,

4. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he was the lowest bidder (L1) and was therefore entitled to be awarded with the contract work is erroneous and misconceived. It is submitted that as, per Clause-4 of the E-Procurement Notice/Invitations for Bids dated 11.9.2015, the bidder was required to write unit rate upto one decimal point only and if he writes the unit rate upto two or more decimal points, the first decimal point shall be considered without rounding off. During evaluation of the price bid, it was found that some of the bidders, including the present petitioner, had quoted the rates upto two or more decimal points in some of the items. Therefore, the evaluation of the financial bid has been done by the authorities taking the unit rate upto one decimal point, as per the said Clause a of the Invitation for Bids. After evaluation, opposite party No. 6 was found to be the first lowest bidder and the petitioner was the fourth lowest bidder. Accordingly, the price bid of opposite party No. 6 was accepted and approved.

5. As regard the