JUDGMENT :

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Anjan Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The validity and correctness of the State wise list of work as regards the respondent No. 3; Letter of Acceptance dated 03-08-2019 and the Work Order dated 08-08-2019 are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department (RED)/Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA) issued a Notice dated 07-03-2019 inviting online bids for construction of 30 works (11 roads and 19 bridges) under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yoyana (PMGSY). Being eligible, the petitioner applied for it by submitting its bids. As per the bills of quantities (BOQ) summary details for construction of Bridge over Imphal River at 5.80 km (Chongtham Kona, Ningthibi Khong), the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. But since the result of the tender process was not declared, it filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 639 of 2019 praying for declaring the result and also for restraining the respondents from awarding the work contract to the other bidders who are placed at 2nd and 3rd position in the tender. On 17-08-2019, when the said writ petition was listed, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents directed the Government Advocate to seek instruction as to when the bids would be finalized and that the matter be listed on 27-08-2019. On 27-08-2019, when the matter was listed again, the learned Government Advocate produced a document relating to State Wise list of Work Order in which the Package No. MNO8101 was found at Sl. No. 8 showing the work being given to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner withdrew the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition and thereafter, it filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 733 of 2019 with a prayer to quash and set aside the State Wise Work Order list. On 13-09-2019, when the said writ petition was listed for consideration at the stage of motion, the learned Government Advocate produced copies of the Letter of Acceptance dated 03-08-2019 and the Work Order dated 08-08-2019, because of which the writ petition was closed with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised and thereafter, the instant writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that even though the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, it was not selected and that without following the due process of law, the respondent No. 3 was selected which was nothing but a biasness and favouritism on the part of the respondents. It is surprisingly and shocking to note that when both the bidders at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 had quoted the same amount including paise, the bid of the respondent No. 3 was approved without disclosing the criteria for it. The outcome of the tender process was made known to the public only before this Court. The acts of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner who was the lowest bidder, are arbitrary and malafide amounting to violation of the principle of natural justice and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

4. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the writ petition has become infructuous, since it was filed on 17-09-2019 after the Letter of Acceptance and the Work Order having been issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 as per the decision dated 12-06-2019 taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It has also been stated that the Government of Manipur constituted two Committees-one, a Technical Bid Evaluation Committee consisting of the Chairman and six members vide order dated 04-01-2019 and two, a Financial Bid Evaluation Committee consisting of the Chairman and three members. The Tender Evaluation Committee held its meeting on 12-06-2019 for finding the lowest evaluated workable percentage of the work/package. The Tender Evaluation Committee examined the details of evaluation based on th