I.M.QUDDUSI, J. - (1.)THE petitioner which is a registered firm participated in the tender proceedings pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued on 22-10-2009 by respondent No.3 i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Distt. Panchayat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, for executing the work of online Data Entry in Monitoring Information System under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It was mentioned in the NIT that there will be three envelopes to be submitted by the tenderers. THE first envelope contains EMD, the second one contains technical offer and the last one contains financial offer. THE process for opening the tenders was prescribed, according to which, the first envelop EMD will be opened and if it is found fit, the second envelope of technical bids will be opened and after finding the technical bid in accordance with the requisite qualification/experience then the financial bid will be opened and the lowest bidder will be called upon for performing the contract works; but in the instant case only four tenderers including the petitioner and respondent No.4 have participated, out of which, two were rejected after opening the first envelop and the other two that is petitioner and respondent 4 remained in the field but instead of opening the technical bid first, respondent No.3 opened technical bid as well as the financial bids together and thus violated the tender conditions and prepared a comparative chart but the following was found from the note sheet: (Vernacular matter omitted) (See Table on next page) THE note sheets were obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. Though the petitioner was the lowest bidder, but the contract was given to respondent No. 4 under one pretext or the other.
(2.)WE are conscious that the scope of judicial review is very limited but when we see that respondent No.3 had itself violated the tender conditions and instead of opening the technical bid first, opened both the technical and financial bids together, the arbitrary (Vernacular matter omitted) action on the part of respondent No.3 cannot be ruled out and thus this Court is inclined to interfere in the matter.
In Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies 2009 AIR SCW 4623 the Supreme Court held as under:

"There is no difficulty to hold that the authorities owe a duty to act fairly but it is equally well settled in judicial review, the Court is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but with the manner in which the decision is taken or the order is made. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the authority deciding the matter. The distinction between appellate power and judicial review is well known but needs reiteration. By way of judicial review, the Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basic in nature and after an objective consideration of different options available taking into account the interest of the State and public, then the Court cannot act as an appellate Court by substituting its opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract. But at the same time the Courts can certainly examine whether 'decision making process' was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14".
See Sterling Computers Limited, 1993 AIR SCW 683 : (AIR 1996 SC 51). The Supreme Court in the said case while referring the decision rendered in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 reiterated that the judicial quest in administrative matters is to strike the just balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters as per Government Policy, and the need of fairness. Any unfairness action must be set right by judicial review.
In the result, we are of the opinion that as soon as the agreement was executed on 10th of November, 2009 and the writ petition was filed on 28th of January 2010 and about 75% work has already been executed, it would not be proper for this Court to disturb the work as it will affect not only the public exchequer of the general public and the development of the State. However, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the officials involved and submit the report to the State Government. On this, the State Government shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. However, it may also be open for the petitioner to claim damages and it will also be open for respondent No.3./The District Panchayat that in case the compensation is to be paid, the same may be recovered from the erring officials.

(3.)NO order as to costs. Order accordingly.