YUMNAM ARUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR THROUGH THE ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Ch.Sundari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and also Mr. N.Ibotombi Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 as well as Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. None appears for the Respondents No.7 and 8.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is one of the bidders for a tender relating to execution of work for widening /reconstruction of culverts on certain portions of a National Highway in the State of Manipur has challenged the acceptance of the lowest bid of the respondent No.6 herein, mainly on the ground that at the time of consideration and selection of the said lowest bidder, CPWD Manual had not been followed, which, if had been followed, would have entailed rejection of the lowest bid of the respondent No.6 for the reason that his bid amount was beyond the permissible limit stipulated in the CPWD Manual, and further that the tender process had been vitiated due to unfair, discriminatory actions of the authorities.

(3.) A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.6.2012 was issued by the Public Works Department, Govt. of Manipur inviting tenders for execution of work for widening/reconstruction of culverts from Km.402.00 to 456.00 on NH -150 (Churachandpur Yaingangpokpi section) under NH -Division No.III in the State of Manipur. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner and others including the present respondent No.6 submitted their tenders. As per Notice Inviting Tender and Standard Bidding Documents, the bids consisted of technical bids as well as the financial bids. As regards the technical bids of the tenderers, there is no dispute amongst the parties. All the bids were found to be technically responsive. The dispute has arisen after the financial bids were opened. The financial bids of the bidders were opened on 6.8.2012 in which the bid of the respondent No.6 was found to be the lowest and the bid of the petitioner was the highest amongst the bidders , and all of them quoted below the estimated amount as given below: -