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.