The court emphasized the need for transparency, accountability, and fair play in the tender process, and highlighted the employer's duty to explore all avenues to find the best contractor.

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

Heard Smt. Ayangleima, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Rabei, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri N. Jotendro, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4.

2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to award the tender work without evaluating the rate of each item by calling for the records as regards the financial bid evaluation report with rational justification by accepting the private respondent as the first lowest reasonable bidder.

3. According to the petitioner, he is a registered special class Government Contractor, Manipur State Rural Roads Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Manipur Rural Development Authority") which floated a tender vide NIT dated 24-10-2014 inviting item rate tender from the eligible contractors for execution of a number of works under the various packages. The petitioner being a competent and eligible contractor, participated in the tender in respect of package No. MNO 6245 along with others including the private respondent by submitting his tender. The Part-I of the bid i.e., technical bid of the said tender was opened on 28-11-2014. After the evaluation of their bids, the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the financial bid after their technical bids being declared on 25-12-2014 after a lapse of 21 days, although the evaluation of the technical bid was to be completed within five working days. The financial bid was opened on 03-02-2015 and both the petitioner and the private respondent were admitted as substantially responsive bidders with both of them being listed as the 2nd and 1st lowest bidders. Without evaluation and comparison of their bids, the private respondent was given the chance of justifying his bids while denying the same to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the actions of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds:-

(a) Without comparing the bids/bid prices amongst the substantially responsive bids by proper evaluation of the bid price/item wise rates i.e. without proper justification of the item wise rates of the competing bidders, the respondent No.2 has blindly decided the bid of the private respondent to be the 1st lowest substantially responsive bid whose overall rates are 16.79% below Bill of Quantity while that the petitioner as 0.87% above BOQ.

(b) The respondent No.2 has failed to evaluate and compare the bids of the petitioner and the private respondent in the matter as provided in Clause 25 and 26 of SBD and the respondent No.2 is not empowered to decide the tender on his own volition based on the overall cost/price without proper justification of the reasonability of the items by setting aside the other responsive bids meaning thereby that the respondent No.2 is not bound to blindly accept the lowest bid based on the overall cost/price of BOQ and it is the Committee consisting of Chairman and Members which has to scrutinize the tender.

(c) The respondent No.2 has failed to see that the private respondent has offered abnormally low rate of major items ranging from 27 to 30% on compensatory basis and not on technical basis in case of construction component which were never justifiable in such remote hill area at high altitude about 60 km. from Imphal.

(d) The private respondent has offered two or more rates for the same item of the same work which is equivalent to submission of two or more bids of the same work by the same bidder which is in violation of Clause 5.1 of SBD and offering of alternative proposal in the BOQ is not allowed in Clause 17.1. of SBD and hence, the bid of the private respondent being non-responsive, should have been rejec