B.B. ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the principal ground of challenge is the same, all these writ petitions were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) These writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful bidders who had submitted their bids in connection with Notices Inviting Tender. The said NITs involve a number of works and the writ petitions have been filed for different works which would be indicated later. Each work in the NIT indicated an estimated cost based upon which the bids were submitted. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all the writ petitions as well as the private respondents were found to be technically responsive and accordingly, the financial bids were opened. It is the case of the petitioners that on opening of such financial bids, their bids for the respective works were found to be the lowest. However, the authorities resorted to the concept of a justified rate and after working out the same, the bids of the private respondents were found nearest to the justified rate and accordingly, declared as L1, followed by allotment of the work. The case of the petitioners, broadly is that the concept of justified rate was not indicated before the tender process had started and even if it is assumed that there was some indication, the same was absolutely not transparent, whereby, the authorities were vested with unbridled discretion, leading to grave injustice in selecting the private respondents to the prejudice of the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that, even assuming that the authorities had the power to work out a justified rate, the process was not scrupulously followed and therefore, the entire exercise stands vitiated.

(3.) Apart from the aforesaid principal ground, in two of the writ petitions, an additional ground has been taken regarding purchase of the bid document by submitting Demand Draft by a third party not connected with the private respondents as well as the fixed deposit certificate purchased by a third party for the Earnest Money Deposit(EMD). It is the case of the petitioners that the Demand Draft for the Bid document as well as Earnest Money Deposit being in the name of a third party, the bid of the private respondent itself is defective and therefore, the financial bid of the said private respondent ought not to have been considered.