Judicial review in contract matters is limited; decisions should not be arbitrary or illegal.

1. Since the pleadings are complete, therefore, they are finally heard. Record perused.

2. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.19992/2015 and W.P. No.20799/2015 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three writ petitions.

3. Uncontroverted and relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, District - Sehore (respondent No.2) for the financial year 2015-16 invited separate tender for outsourcing the work of House Keeping and Security Services, for Hospital & Dispensaries situated within the District Sehore under the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. As per tender document, the bidder was required to submit Technical and Financial bid in two separate envelopes. First the Technical bid was to open and assessed and those qualified in that round, their Financial Bids were to open later, before awarding the contract for which tenders were invited.

4. Petitioners and Ratan Emporium respondent No. 4 in all these writ petitions submitted separate tender documents and bids for House Keeping and Security Service. They were found eligible therefore their Technical Bids were opened. Thereafter their financial bids were opened for evaluation.

5. On evaluation of the financial bid for both the two separate works petitioners did not qualify therefore their bids were rejected, whereas respondent No. 4 having quailed in both rounds of assessment, its bids were accepted both for House Keeping and Security Agency., Being aggrieved by this action of respondent 1 to 3 these petitions have been filed to challenge the action of respondents and to quash the work order issued in favour of respondent No.4. They also claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus to award contracts to petitioners.

6. Respondent No.1 to 3 have filed their return and justified the action in rejection of financial bids of the petitioners and acceptance of bid of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has also filed the return and justify the acceptance of, its bids for House Keeping and Security Services.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 to 3 acted illegally in rejecting financial bids of petitioners. It was submitted that bid of Indoriya Security Force was the lowest bid and it ought to have been accepted It was also submitted that rejection of the bid of Indoriya Security Force was on a flimsy ground not borne out from the tender documents. It was further submitted Clause 11(c) and 11(d) is arbitrary and rejection of bid on that count is also arbitrary. Similarly, for petitioner Kamtheen Security Services, submissions of the counsel was same and it was submitted that respondents acted illegally in rejecting the bid of Kamtheen Security Services relying on Annexure E while accepting the bids of Ratan Emporium for House Keeping and Security Services. It was further submitted Annexure E of tender document is arbitrary and rejection of bid on that count is also arbitrary.

8. Shri Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate submits that the financial bids of petitioner - Indoriya Security Force was rejected in view of Clause - 11 (c) & (d) of the tender documents; whereas the financial bids of Kamtheen Security Services was rejected in view of Annexure - E, of tender document. According to him no illegality was committed while rejecting bids of petitioners and accepting the bids of respondent No.4. He further submitted that in view of Clause 11(c) and (d) and Annexure F of tender document, every prospective bidder who purchased the tender document, was made aware on about these requirements and can not be permitted to turn around to challenge the rejection of bids.

9. Counsel for respondent No. 4 reiterated submissi