IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contractual powers by government bodies.

JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners; Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate for the private respondent in WP(C) No.355 of 2019; Mr. S. Lokendro, learned Advocate for the private respondent in W.P.(C) No.356 of 2019 and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA for the State respondents.

[2] Since the facts and circumstances of the above two writ petitions are identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The only difference is that in WP(C) No.355 of 2019, the work order dated 28-02-2019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 661, has been challenged, while the work order dated 19-02-2019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 6323, has been challenged in WP(C) No.356 of 2019.

WP(C) No.355 of 2019:

[3.1] Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner who belongs to ST community in Manipur, is a Special Class Contractor.

[3.2] The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as “the PMGSY”) was launched by the Government of India on 25-12- 2000 with a view to promote access to economic and social services thereby increasing agricultural incomes and productive employment opportunities by providing all weather roads to unconnected habitations. The PMGSY is a 100% centrally sponsored scheme. The work under the PMGSY in the State of Manipur employs a separate rate namely the Schedule of Rate (SR), Manipur. The rate so fixed has been adopted in preparing the estimate for any work or DPR for various projects under the PMGSY. The standard quantum of labour materials and machineries considered at the time of deriving the rates of specific items, cannot be varied by any bidder at the time of assessing this rates to offer in a tender.

[3.3] The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department (RED)/ Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA), Imphal issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as “the NIT”) dated 19-07-2018 for construction of 142 roads and 53 bridges under the PMGSY and the petitioner being eligible for it, submitted his bids for participation in the tender process for various packages including the packages-No.MN0 661, Saikul- Ichaigoyang to Hengjang and No.MN0 6323, NH-39 to Khochangbung.

[3.4] The technical bids in respect of the package No. MN0 661, Saikul- Ichaigoyang to Hengjang were opened on 12-11-2018 wherein the petitioner and the private respondent were found to be the responsive bidders by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Thereafter, the financial bids were also opened and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder (L1) as he quoted Rs.116002776.18/-.

[3.5] The Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India issued a circular dated 20-01-2010 with regard to the post-tender negotiations clarifying that there should normally be no post-tender negotiations. If such negotiations are warranted under the exceptional circumstances, then it can be done with the lowest bidder only, if the tender pertains to the award of work/ supply orders etc. for which the Government or the Government Company has to make the payment.

[3.6] Even though the technical bid evaluation and financial bid evaluation had already been done, the tender process in respect of the aforesaid package was not finalised by awarding the work order/ letter of intent to the petitioner which compelled him to submit a representation dated 03-12-2018 to the Chief Engineer (RED) requesting him to issue work order in his favour so as to enable him to start the execution of the work. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.135 of 2019 praying for awarding contract upon him, which was disposed of on 20-02-2019 directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation submitted by him by issuing a speaking order and that too, before the letter of intent was issued by the respondents. As the State respondents failed to consider and dispose o