The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to tender conditions, including the duty to communicate the rejection of technical bids and the requirement of submitting the hard copy.

K.M. Joseph, J.

1. When the appeal was taken up, though it was listed for admission, on agreement of the both the parties, the Appeal was itself heard.

2. Appellant is the 7th respondent in the writ petition. Writ petitioner and the appellant participated in a tender, which was done through e-tendering for flood construction work on right bank of river Mandakini. The work consisted of two stages, namely, technical and financial. The technical bid of the writ petitioner was rejected. This occasioned filing of the writ petition and he sought quashing of the order dated 31.10.2017 issued by respondent nos. 2 to 6 Committee (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). A mandamus was sought to command acceptance of his technical bid and also to open the financial bid afresh considering the technical bids of the petitioner and other successful bidders. Be it noted that on the basis of opening of the financial bid, bid of the appellant was found to be apparently lowest and it was accepted.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge appears to be as follows:

“Tenders were invited by respondent no. 3 from eligible candidates on 22.09.2017. The auction was to be done by way of two-tier bidding process. The technical bids were to be opened on 31.10.2017 and after evaluation of the technical bids, the financial bids of the persons, who qualified in the technical bids were to be opened on 21.11.2017.”

4. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge reasons as follows:

“8. It is an admitted case of the State Government that the technical bid of tuhe petitioner has been rejected but it was never informed to the petitioner prior to 21.11.2017, the admitted case of the respondents is that the technical bid was uploaded on 21.11.2017 and financial bid was opened on the same day at 05.18 P.M. This is clearly the violation of the tender conditions. By not informing the petitioner that he has been unsuccessful in his bid, the essential condition of the tender has been violated. Had the petitioner been informed in time that his technical bid has been rejected, he could have made a representation before the respondent authorities to make out a case that the rejection of his technical bid is on non-essential ground and they may reconsider his bid. This opportunity, however, was never given to the petitioner. Moreover, out of the total 17 candidates, the technical bids of 14, candidates have been rejected and only three candidates were declared successful in the technical bid.

9. The comparative rates of the three companies who have qualified the technical bid show that the difference in rates bid made by them is extremely marginal. However, nothing needs to be said on this aspect.”

5. He notes that normally, the Court would have refrained from interfering in such matters, which are purely commercial in nature, but since in the present case, there has been a clear violation of the tender conditions, therefore, an interference is required in this matter. The writ petition was allowed and the entire bidding process adopted by the respondents was quashed and fresh bids were directed to be invited by the respondents in accordance with law.

6. We heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the official respondents.

7. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is a case, where the writ petitioner had not complied with the mandatory conditions and, therefore, his technical bid was rejected; whereas, appellant’s bid, which was found responsive, was processed and the contract was finalized in his favour, but what is more, approximately 35 per cent of the work has already been carried out. He would submit that there was no basis for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the matter as the technical bid of the writ petitioner was not responsive.

8. Per