DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners assail a work order issued in terms of a notice inviting tender on the ground that, two of the items floated in the tender documents have not found place in the work order itself.
(2.) Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the authorities are not entitled to withdraw two items from the work order from a tender process. The petitioners had participated in the tender process on the basis of the entirety of the work and have put in rates accordingly. Taking away two items from the tender process is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners and affects the commercial viability of the project. According to him, this action of the respondent authority is arbitrary and biased. He seeks interim protection in terms of prayer (f) of the writ petition.
(3.) Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that, the petitioners had participated in a similar nature of tender process where such tender process was cancelled. The petitioners did not come to the Court on earlier occasion. He submits that, the tender is on item basis. Therefore, it is open to the authorities to take away few items from the tender bill of quantities. He submits that, the tender evaluation committee had found the rates quoted in respect of these two items to be extremely high and therefore, they have decided to do a fresh tender for the two items. There is no infirmity in the impugned decision of the authorities.;