ROKOSALIE ANGAMI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to court being aggrieved by the fact that even though he was declared a successful bidder at the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee (in short ,,TEC) constituted by the respondents 1 to 3 (in short official respondents) held on 29.10.2010, the letter of acceptance (in short ,,LOA) and the work order has not been awarded to him.

(2.) BUT before we proceed further it would be necessary to refer to certain aspects, post institution of the writ petition in this court. The captioned writ petition was moved on 14.1.2011 along with an interlocutory application, when we directed that all actions taken by the official respondents would be subject to the final outcome of the petition. Crucially, this order had to be passed as we were informed on that day that, the official respondents had already issued a LOA to respondent no.4. It is important to bear in mind that, at the stage the writ petition was filed, the petitioner was not perhaps clearly aware of the fact as to whether or not, work had been awarded to respondent No.4. Respondent no. 4, incidentally, is the very same person whose bid had been declared non-responsive by the official respondents at very same meeting of the TEC which has been referred to above by us i.e. 29.10.2010. The petitioner had come to the court placing his apprehensions in the forefront, which were that he had come to know on 12.1.2011 that even though respondent No.4s bid was declared non- responsive, the official respondents, were on the verge of awarding the contract to it i.e. respondent no.4.

(3.) WITH this prefatory note we would like to note the background in which the grievance raised by the petitioner before us has arisen. 5.1 Respondent nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as official respondents) issued a Notice Inviting Tender (in short ,,NIT) on 08.07.2010 for construction of following work:-