A public authority must act fairly but is entitled to its choice in accepting or not accepting the bid. The decision making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias, and there should be no denial of level playing field.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Goel, C.J. - This petition seeks quashing of Tender Call Notice dated 2.8.2013 Annexure-3 and direction to give the work order to the petitioner. Vide Tender Call Notice dated 3..6.2013 sealed tenders were invited for transportation of food stuffs from FCI Depots to school points under Midday Meal Programme in Mayurbhanj district for the year 2013-2014. The Tender Notice mentions that bid will be opened and evaluated by the Tender Committee and its decision shall be final and binding on the tenderers. It was also mentioned that Tender Authority reserves the right to reject any or all the tender without assigning any reason.

2. The petitioner was one of the tenderers and out of three tenderers the technical bid of the petitioner alone was found eligible and financial bid was opened. The Committee decided to approve the bid of the petitioner subject to approval by the Tender Authority i.e. Collector. The matter was directed to be placed before the Collector. The Collector did not approve the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the only tenderer left and for transparency and fair play re-tender was ordered. Accordingly, the impugned fresh tender notice dated 2.8.2013 was issued inter alia mentioning the 'ceiling price' to be Rs. 75/- per quintal, which was also the rate quoted by the petitioner. The said ceiling price was also mentioned in the first tender notice.

3. Assailing the said decision to issue tender call notice, this petition has been preferred on the ground that the decision of the Tender Committee could not be interfered with by the Collector. There was no bar to the acceptance of the bid of the single tenderer which was found suitable by the Tender Committee. According to the petitioner, the decision to re-tender was arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice without giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party submitting that the Collector was justified in disapproving the proceedings of the Tender Committee.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) The Tender conditions laying down that the decision of the Tender Committee was final debarred the Collector from interfering with the decision of the Committee;

(ii) The bid of the petitioner having been opened, the petitioner will be prejudiced if the said bid was not accepted; and

(iii) Fresh tender will not serve any purpose as the rate quoted by the petitioner was within the ceiling limit. It should be presumed that the fresh tender is for giving benefit to some other tenderers who may quote the same rate which will be arbitrary and discriminatory. The bid of the petitioner has been rejected as the petitioner was not to the liking of the Collector.

7. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions:

(i) Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others,

(ii) Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries,

(iii) Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. and Others,

(iv) Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others,

(v) Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin Int., Airport Ltd. and Others,

(vi) Union of India and Others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another etc.,

(vii) Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

(viii) Reliance Energy Limited and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Others,

8. In substance, the submission is that Tender Authority must act fairly and as per notified procedure. If a mechanical order is passed as in the present case, the same should be held to be arbitrary and denial of level playing field.

9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education opposes the said submission and submits that the finding of the Collector is consistent with the T