R S DAIKHO, S/O (LATE) TH SAPUNI OF RIKHUMAI TAPHOU Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Ayangleima, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Rabei, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri N. Jotendro, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4.

(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to award the tender work without evaluating the rate of each item by calling for the records as regards the financial bid evaluation report with rational justification by accepting the private respondent as the first lowest reasonable bidder.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he is a registered special class Government Contractor, Manipur State Rural Roads Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Manipur Rural Development Authority") which floated a tender vide NIT dated 24-10-2014 inviting item rate tender from the eligible contractors for execution of a number of works under the various packages. The petitioner being a competent and eligible contractor, participated in the tender in respect of package No. MNO6245 along with others including the private respondent by submitting his tender. The Part-I of the bid i.e., technical bid of the said tender was opened on 28-11-2014. After the evaluation of their bids, the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the financial bid after their technical bids being declared on 25-12-2014 after a lapse of 21 days, although the evaluation of the technical bid was to be completed within five working days. The financial bid was opened on 03-02-2015 and both the petitioner and the private respondent were admitted as substantially responsive bidders with both of them being listed as the 2nd and 1st lowest bidders. Without evaluation and comparison of their bids, the private respondent was given the chance of justifying his bids while denying the same to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the actions of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds:-