(1.) The appeal is directed against a rather articulate and wellconsidered judgment pertaining to the extent of interference in a matter pertaining to a tender by a Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Bench has appropriately held that the Court will be slow to interfere unless it finds a case of illegality or crass arbitrariness.
(2.) The appellants herein responded to an electronic notice inviting tender issued some time in the year 2014 for the widening and strengthening of an 8.75 km stretch of a State Highway between Motijhil and Panditbagh More Road in the district of Murshidabad.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the estimated amount indicated in the tender documents was Rs. 6,18,26,809.35. Upon the notice inviting tender being published it appears that not too many bidders were interested, whereupon certain terms were sought to be relaxed by the authorities for bidders to be attracted to apply thereunder. At the second stage, the appellants herein and another bidder were in the fray and even the other bidder was found not to be technically qualified. Thus, the writ petitioner-appellants were the only one in the field and, pursuant to negotiations with the authorities, the original rate quoted by the writ petitioners was revised to Rs. 7,08,16,427.03. Thus, the amount quoted by the writ petitioner-appellants was Rs. 89,89,617.68 or about 14.54 per cent above the estimated amount.