ORDER :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Respondent No. 1 invited tenders for the Annual University Rate Contract for supply of Animal and Poultry Feed Ingredients and Feed Additives, by issuing Notice Inviting Tender on 24.08.2020. As per the Notice Inviting Tender, the complete bid document could be downloaded from the official website, by paying a non-transferable bid document fee of Rs. 2,240/- (Rs. 2,000/- document fee plus Rs. 240/- GST @ 12%) in the form of crossed Demand Draft issued by the following four banks, namely, State Bank of India/Punjab National Bank/UCO Bank/Union Bank of India.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his technical bid on the sole ground that the bid document fee was paid by him through a bank draft issued by ICICI Bank.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: "

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order/minutes of the meeting dated 09.10.2020 passed/recorded by the respondent No. 3, whereby the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on an alleged technical ground that the tender document fees was paid through a draft of a different bank then desired in the tender and for quashing the order dated 13.10.2020, by means of which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to declare the petitioner as technically qualified and then to proceed further in the tender process from that stage by evaluating the price bid of the petitioner vis--vis other technically qualified bidder and then to award the tender to the best eligible participant."

4. According to the petitioner, in the pre-bid meeting held on 02.09.2020, he had requested that since he does not have account in any of the aforesaid four banks, therefore, he be permitted to submit bank draft issued by some other bank and the members of Tender Committee told him that he may get the draft prepared from other banks also; but, he will have to pay 3% extra towards collection charges. It is further the case of the petitioner that, in view of the assurance given by members of the Tender Committee on 02.09.2020, he prepared a bank draft of Rs. 2240/- + Rs. 100/- = Rs. 2340/- from ICICI Bank and submitted the said bank draft alongwith two other bank drafts amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-, both issued by ICICI Bank, towards earnest money deposit. Subsequently, on 30.09.2020, petitioner was informed by the office of respondent No. 1 that following shortcomings were noticed in his bid i.e. (i) technical compliance statement form not duly filled; (ii) affidavit regarding correctness of bid not submitted; and (iii) annual turnover certificate from CA not submitted.

5. According to the petitioner, he supplied the desired documents in terms of the communication dated 30.09.2020; but, his technical bid was rejected by the University Rate Contract Committee, in its meeting held on 09.10.2020, on objection made by a rival bidder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that paying tender document fee through a draft issued by a bank other than the four banks specified in the tender notice, does not amount to material deviation, in terms of Clause 2.20.4 of Instructions to Bidders. Clause 2.20.4 provides that "deviations from or objections or reservations to critical provisions such as those concerning Bid Security/Performance Security, Warranty, Force Majeure, Applicable law and Taxes and Duties will be deemed to be a material deviation." He also refers to Clause 3.2.2 in support of his contention that bid document fee is not part of technical bid. Thus, he submits that rejection of petitioner's technical bid is not warranted, as per terms and conditions of the bid document, and at best it can be said to be a small deviation, for which a bid cannot be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner's demand draft of