JUDGMENT :

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri S.D Singh, learned Advocate assisted by Shri T. Momo Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri N. Kumarjit Singh, learned AG assisted by Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned Advocate for the respondents.

2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the NIT dated 28-12-2019 issued by the respondent No. 2; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents not to proceed with the said NIT; to declare Clause No. 1.2.5 of NIT as illegal, violative of the rights of the petitioner, ultra vires and null and void; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the bid and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to continue with the execution of the work awarded to the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the termination letter dated 02-11-2019.

3.1. Facts and circumstances as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition are, in short, that on 18-02-2010, the respondents issued the NIT for the work known as "Construction of Capital Complex (Civil Secretariat Component) at Mantripukhri, Imphal". The petitioner being eligible, participated in the bid along with other bidders. The Technical Bid was opened on 15-06-2010 and since only two bidders were found to be eligible, their Financial Bids which were scheduled to be opened on 25-06-2010, were duly opened on 25-06-2010 itself.

3.2. The respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 06-07-2010 informed the petitioner that it was found to be the lowest bidder and requested the petitioner to attend office on 08-07-2010 for negotiation on rates quoted by it. On 08-07-2010 the respondents wrote a letter to the petitioner, being the lowest bidder, for negotiation. After the negotiation being held, the total value of the contract was fixed at Rs. 282.60 crores. A meeting of the Tender Committee was held on 28-08-2010 and pursuant to a decision taken by the respondents based on the minutes of the meeting, a letter of intent was issued on 05-10-2010 in favour of the petitioner.

3.3. As per the Letter of Intent dated 05-10-2010 issued in favour of the petitioner, the period for execution of the said works fixed at 36 (thirty-six) months from the date of execution of the agreement between the parties which occurred on 18-10-2010 and accordingly, the original period for execution of the works was scheduled to expire on 17-10-2013. The contract was a lump sum contract meaning thereby that in the aforesaid contract value, the petitioner was required to execute the work as emerged from the scope of the works for the project in question consisting of three buildings including its ancillary works. For completion of the project, it was necessary that the final drawings were to be made available by the respondents which engaged the consultant namely, M/s. Design Academy, Interior Design from Bangalore for the purpose of preparing the drawings, designs etc. and to process the approval thereof and to take other steps to supply the final drawings to the petitioner for execution of the works.

3.4. As required under the terms and conditions, the petitioner submitted the Bank Guarantee towards the performance of the contract being 5% of the contract value. The completion of the project was fully dependent on the performance of the contractual obligations by both the parties. The occurrence of the natural calamity or civil war commotion, Indian Labour Permit (ILP), National Highway/State Highway/road blockages, bandhs, strikes etc. have always been treated as force majeure and the parties would be absolved from the performance of the contractual obligations and the delay owing to the aforesaid circumstances.

3.5. The respondents were totally unable to supply the drawings even after the expiry of 16