STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. L. Y. ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned Standing counsel, Rural Development Department, for the appellants in WA No. 20(AP)/2026 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 21(AP)/2026. Also heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in WA No. 20(AP)2026 and for the respondent No. 5 in WA No. 21(AP)/2026.

(2.) These 2 (two) intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment and order dtd. 9/1/2026 passed in WP(C) No. 243/2025 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been allowed by holding that the bid of the writ petitioner is within the permissible limit provided under Clause 20.4.3.2 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014, thereby directing the respondent authorities to award the contract in favour of the writ petitioner.

(3.) Facts of the case in brief are that the Project Director, Department of Rural Development, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, the respondent No. 4 herein, issued a Notice Inviting Tender dtd. 11/4/2025 inviting bids from eligible Class-II contractors for "supply and procurement of materials under MGNREGA 2025-26" in respect of CD Block, Chetam, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo (Package-VIII). The estimated cost of the work is Rs.5,36,45,700.00 (Rupees Five Crores Thirty-Six Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred only). Pursuant to the said NIT, three firms including the Appellant in WA No. 21(AP)/2026 and petitioner/Respondent No. 1 and 5 participated in the tender process. The technical bids were opened on 30/4/2025 and the financial bids were opened on 1/5/2025. Upon evaluation of the financial bids, it was found that M/s L. Y. Enterprises, Respondent No. 1 and 5 herein and the writ petitioner in writ petition, had quoted the lowest amount of Rs.4,82,81,129.93 (Rupees Four Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Nine and Paise Ninety Three only), whereas the appellant No.2 herein had quoted Rs.4,97,22,889.85 (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine and Paise Eighty Five only). However, the Tender Evaluation Board found that the bid quoted by the Respondent No. 1 and 5/writ petitioner was -10% below the estimated cost put to tender and considering the same to be an unworkable rate, did not accept the said bid notwithstanding it was the L-1 bid. Consequently, the bid of the appellant No. 2 was forwarded for approval vide order dtd. 2/5/2025.