Judgement By this order, the Civil Rule No. W.P. (C) 109/2000 and the petition for interim order are proposed to be disposed of finally. 2. The dispute arises out of a decision of the respondents-State to award a contract for supply, erection, testing and commissioning of power station at Purba Kanchanbari in the State of Tripura. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was published on 19-3-1999 for various items of working including the said power station. The petitioner firm namely M/s. PSC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. submitted tender paper along with other competitors including respondent No. 4. It was stipulated in the NIT that the tender papers would be sold on production of various documents which also included performance certificate from certain specified authorities mentioned therein for similar nature of work. The tender papers were opened on 11-5-1999 and the petitioner-firm was found to be the lowest amongst the formal and qualified bidders. The petitioner was summoned by the Chief Engineer, Electrical for a techno-commercial discussion on 18-6 -1999. The respondent-authority was completely satisfied about the viability of the offer of the petitioner-firm both on technical and financial side. The respondent No. 4, M/s. Vector Engineers also submitted the tender papers, but the same was rejected on the very day of opening of the tender by the concerned Executive Engineer being informal and incomplete because of non-production of documents relating to its performance as per NIT condition No. 3 (II). Despite such rejection, the respondent-State declared the tender of the respondent-firm as formal and decided to award the contract to them. The petitioner immediately objected to the above move by a letter dated 30-6-1999 addressed to the Chief Secretary Tripura seeking his intervention in the matter. In Sept. 1999, the respondent No. 4 M/s. Vector Engineers filed the writ petition No. W.P. (C) 497/99 before this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus for setting aside the decision declaring their tender papers informal and also for a direction not to give effect to the said decision. The petitioner-firm immediately submitted a petition for impleadment as a party. The said writ petition and the petition for impleadment were disposed of when a statement was made by the learned Govt. Advocate that the departmental authorities have decided to declare the tender papers of the respondent firm as formal. The petitioner-firm immediately submitted a petition for impleadment as a party. The said writ petition and the petition for impleadment were disposed of when a statement was made by the learned Govt. Advocate that the departmental authorities have decided to declare the tender papers of the respondent firm as formal. Thereafter, on 31-1-2000 the State-authorities in gross violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT declared the informal tender of respondent-firm as formal and this decision was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 87 of 2000 filed on 23-2-2000. It was submitted before the Court by the learned Govt. Advocate that the final decision with regard to the tender was not taken by the State and on this submission, the writ petition was rejected as premature with liberty to the petitioner-firm to approach this Court again. The petitioner-firm being lowest amongst all formal tenderers and their offer being techno-commercially viable was under the expectation that the authorities would take just and proper decision and award the contract in its favour. But the State-authorities in violation of all norms decided to award the contract in favour of the respondent-firm and issued a letter of intent accordingly. The petitioner-firm having no alternative filed the instant writ petition alleging infringement of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. The State authorities as well as the respondent-firm filed separate affidavits controverting the averments and allegations made in the writ petition. The contention of the State-respondents is that after declaration of the tender documents of respondent-firm as formal, both the contending firms were treated at par and the respondent-firm being lowest was chosen for the contract, particularly on consideration of the experience/performance of its proprietor, Shri Gautam Bahri. According to the State, the Executive Engineer was not authorised under the Delegation of the Financial Power Rules, Tripura, 1994 to take any decision with regard to a contract of an estimated value of more than Rs. 4 crores. The competent authority as per provisions of the said Rule is the SAB/WAB and, as such, the decision of the latter would be final and decisive in the matter. 4 crores. The competent authority as per provisions of the said Rule is the SAB/WAB and, as such, the decision of the latter would be final and decisive in the matter. It is averred that in the follow up action in the department, it was found that the proprietor of the respondent-firm gained experience as a partner of the petitioner-firm and after taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 the authorities took the impugned decision to declare the respondent No. 4 as formal and to award the contract with them. 4. The respondent-firm in their counter-affidavit highlighted the experience and performance of the proprietor of the firm and almost in the same tune tried to justify the impugned decision. 5. From the pleadings reproduced above it would appear that the controversy centres around the decision to treat the tender documents filed by the respondent-firm as formal and the decision taken by the authority to award the contract to the respondent-firm on consideration of extraneous matters in negation of the legitimate expectation of the petitioner-firm. It is on this context, I would like to proceed with the matter at hand primarily to examine the decision making process in the light of the law that governs the field. 6. In so far as the NIT specifications and conditions are concerned, it is unambiguous and clear that it provided for certain certificates and documents along with tender papers including the performance certificate from the Department of Power, Tripura/MSEB/ADEB/PGCIL/NEEPCO/CPWD/WBSEB/or under any State Electricity Department for similar nature of work of value of at least 25% put to tender. It is also provided that the Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Agartala reserved the rights to reject any or all the tenders including the lowest tender without assigning any reason. 7. The question would naturally arise whether the State authority can step beyond the requirement of performance certificate from the specified authorities as provided in the NIT It is needless to point out that a Notice Inviting Tender is a promise made to the intending bidders and the authority making such promise will not normally be permitted to deviate therefrom except where the element of public interest necessitates such deviation. Any arbitrary departure from the promise made in the N.I.T. will undoubtedly usher in an anomalous situation in the matter of distribution of State largesse. The law in this regard has been crystallised by the Apex Court in various judgments rendered from time to time. In Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 247 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1527 ) the Supreme Court ruled that the Government may enter into a contract with any person, but while doing so the State or its instrumentality cannot act arbitrarily. If the State chooses to invite tenders, the terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice have to be rigorously followed. 8. So far permissibility of departure from the NIT specification is concerned it would be relevant to refer hereto the decision in Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 16 28 wherein it has been observed that an Executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it has no alternative but to scrupulously observe those standards. To be more precise, there is no scope for any deviation from the eligibility conditions prescribed in the NIT. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : (1994 AIR SCW 3344), the Supreme Court spelt out the inherent limitations ingrained in the exercise of powers of judicial review and made it clear that the same principles would also apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. While exercising the powers of judicial review, the prime consideration before the Court shall be to find out whether the State has endeavoured to get the best person or best quotation keeping in mind the element of public interest involved in the matter. Yet in another case, namely, Raunaq Industries Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393 the Apex Court emphasised the basic principles formulated in Tata Cellular (supra). 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., v. State of Assam, 1999 (3) GLT 195 summarised the law in this behalf. A portion thereof relevant to the instant case is reproduced below :- "12. The reasons reflected in the order of the Minister-in-Charge that the respondent No. 4 has quoted the lowest price is not in controversy. A portion thereof relevant to the instant case is reproduced below :- "12. The reasons reflected in the order of the Minister-in-Charge that the respondent No. 4 has quoted the lowest price is not in controversy. The other reason that the respondent No. 4 is a Government Company is in challenge. We have carefully examined the tender notice and nowhere we find any indication that the Government Company would be given preference to others. In our opinion when a tender is floated inviting offers without specifying any reservation for special consideration, the authority assigned with the duty to accept the best available tender cannot during the course of consideration attribute any preferential treatment to any class or group of competing tenderers. This view has been a law for the country since the judgment in Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 247 has been pronounced by the Supreme Court." 10. It is obvious that the respondent-firm did not file any certificate or document of performance from the authorities specified in the N.I.T. while submitting the tender documents. The Executive Engineer declared the tender of their firm as informal. It would, therefore, be relevant at this stage to have a look at the file produced by the learned Govt. Advocate. The Note given by the Assistant Engineer, Transmission Division , Agartala relevant for the purpose at hand is quoted below :- "The Tender paper of M/s. Vector Engineers has been declared Informal by Executive Engineer, Transmission Division. However, the rate quoted by them has been shown in the C.S. After Mathematical calculation and necessary loading, it is seen that the firm is not come into lowest position. On scrutiny it is seen from the C.S. that M/s. P.S.C. has quoted over all lowest rate. Their supply rates are inclusive ED + CST against C = D forms and freight and insurance + 4% WCT. The firm has also borne the storage and erection and commissioning Insurance up to the period of commissioning. As per present sales tax norms the outside firms also under the purview of the local Tax, so local Tax loaded extra (12 % - 4%) = 8%, as 4% WCT has taken into supply items also. In case of price variation they only quoted "Firm" rates. They do not claim any advance like other firms. As per present sales tax norms the outside firms also under the purview of the local Tax, so local Tax loaded extra (12 % - 4%) = 8%, as 4% WCT has taken into supply items also. In case of price variation they only quoted "Firm" rates. They do not claim any advance like other firms. As per prevailing norms the rate of interest on advance is 17.34% per annum. So the firms who claim advance, the interest is loaded on C.S. In case No load and "load" of transformer as the provision of NITs rate has been loaded for all these firms. Against Item No. 7 for using Micro Processor for feeder control and relay pannels the firm quoted extra rate Rs. 1,000,00/- each. Amount involved is Rs., 3,67,36,298.00 which is 9.84% below against estimated cost." . . . . . . . . . . "Considering above, it is clear that M/s. P.Sc. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. is the 1st lowest. They have sufficient experience in 132 KV substation works. They have completed 132/11/KV. Sub-station at Khowai under direct supervision of Transmission Division. So they may be awarded with offer after negotiation, considering different conditions imposed and lower-down some percentage on overall tender value etc." Submitted for kind perusal." 11. The Note of the Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Agartala dated 25-5-1999 reads s follows :- "From the CS it may kindly be seen over all lowest amount in favour of PSC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Their rates include excise , CST, Freight and insurance on work contract, FOR at destination and also their rate in farm. Their amount comes to Rs. 3,67,36,29,800. After considering the LT (12-4) = 8% on supply item (27527915) comes to Rs. 22,02,233.00 as 4% work contract taxes has already been included in their rate at supply and erection. Considering 8% LST as shown in the CS, the amount comes to Rs. 3,67,298.00 which comes to 9.84% below the estimated amount. The LST may be required extra as material consignee will be firm themselves. The rates quoted by the firm seems to be reasonable and acceptable. Here they have included their store-cum-erection-cum-commissioning insurance charges in their rate. Evaluation of transformer loss has been indicated in the C.S. But it will not focus amount in the involvement. It may be mentioned here that for loading purpose in the CS. The rates quoted by the firm seems to be reasonable and acceptable. Here they have included their store-cum-erection-cum-commissioning insurance charges in their rate. Evaluation of transformer loss has been indicated in the C.S. But it will not focus amount in the involvement. It may be mentioned here that for loading purpose in the CS. WCT has been shown 4% for all the works value i.e. supply and erection and 12% LST extra has been considered on supply item. 2nd lowest tenderer in United Steel Products. Their amount comes to Rs. 3,84,97,557/- i.e. 5.52% below against the estimated cost. 3rd lowest tenderer is Techno Corpn. Agt. and total involvement is Rs. 4,11,32,504/- which include excise duty, CST, freight and Insurance + LST + WCT which is 0.94% above the estimated amount. Over all lowest Tenderer M/s. PSC Eng. Pvt. Ltd. has done 132/33 KV substation at Dhalabil, Khowai under this Divn. with satisfaction, it is recommended in favour of all over the lowest tenderer PSC Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta on negotiation, on withdrawal of deviated terms. Their amount involves ED + CST + Freight Insurance + WCT + Store-cum-erection-cum commissioning insurance charges. Submitted for kind perusal." 12. The Note of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Generation Circle, Agartala, Tripura dated 29-5-99 is quoted below for ready reference :- "Based on notes of Executive Engineer, Transmission division and C/S. placed in the file, this is to say that M/s P.S.C. Calcutta have offered lowest rate in the tender. Their tender value is Rs. 3,67,36,398.00 and that the same of the second lowest bidder M/s. United Steel Products is Rs. 3,84,97,557.00, therefore, the difference between the First and second lowest bidder is Rs. 17,61,259.00 besides the tender of M/s. P.S.C. is 9.84% lower than the Est. value. The terms and condition of the L 1 bidder are not all in conformity of the tender. These need either clarification or withdrawal on discussion. So subject to withdrawal or clarification of the terms of which details have been stated above, the tender of M/s. P.S.C. is recommended for acceptance." 13. Even the Chief Engineer (Power Project) in his Note dated 22-6-99 observed as follows :- "Out of the remaining 4 Nos. of firms the rate of M/s. PSC Engineers, Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta is lowest tenderer and the quoted rate is Rs. Even the Chief Engineer (Power Project) in his Note dated 22-6-99 observed as follows :- "Out of the remaining 4 Nos. of firms the rate of M/s. PSC Engineers, Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta is lowest tenderer and the quoted rate is Rs. 3,44,80,065.00 inclusive of all taxes and duties excluding LST for supply items which shall be paid extra by the Department. The first lowest tenderer M/s. PSC Engineers, Calcutta was called for negotiation to finalise the tender on 18-6-99 at 3.30 p.m. In course of negotiation the firm was agreed to the following : (a) An overall discount of 1.75% on the quoted price. (b) To provide bank guarantee of 5% value of the contract towards performance guarantee clause. (c) Quantity variation of items agreed up to ± 25%. (d) Agreed to reduce time period of completion from 18 months to 12 months. (e) Agreed to other terms and conditions of NIT. Rate on negotiation with the firm thus works out to Rs. 3,38,76,664.00 inclusive all taxes and duties excluding LST on supply items to be paid extra by the Department as per actual on the date of supply. The above rate is firm and is 13.05% below the estimated cost put to tender. It is therefore, proposed to consider the proposal by WAB. 9(Nine) copies of WAB Memo, are placed in the file with a request to move to the Finance Department for placement to the WAB." 14. There is an uniformity in the approach of the above officers. The above notes clearly indicate that the authorities up to the level of Chief Engineer were satisfied that the tender papers of respondent No. 4 were not formal and after considering all materials on record, they recommended the petitioner-firm for award of the contract subject to approval by SAB-WAB. 15. Mr. Saha, learned State Counsel argued that the opinion of the engineers has no relevance as the SAB/WAB consisting of high officials of the Government is the final authority to take a decision in the matter. There is no dispute with regard to this contention. Therefore, without attributing any touch of finality to the opinion expressed by the engineers, I would like to examine the view of the SAB/WAB in this regard and the manner and method adopted by them in taking a decision in favour of the Respondent No. 4. 16. There is no dispute with regard to this contention. Therefore, without attributing any touch of finality to the opinion expressed by the engineers, I would like to examine the view of the SAB/WAB in this regard and the manner and method adopted by them in taking a decision in favour of the Respondent No. 4. 16. The SAB/WAB, as it appears from the office file, assembled on three occasion to decide the matter. The meetings were held on 26-8-99, 19-11-99 and 18-1-2000. The decision of the SAB/WAB taken on 26-8-99 reads as follows :- "DECISION OF SAB/WAB DATED 26-8-1999. SAB decided that views of the Law Department in this case should be accepted that the personal experience of a person employed by a firm could not be of any help to the experience of the firm. Further, the representation for considering the experience of the individual was submitted after the opening of tender and therefore could not be considered. The proposal of this Deptt. was approved." 17. It is clear from above decision that the respondent No. 4 submitted his proof of experience by way of presenting a representation after opening of the tender and the highest decision making body of the State decided that the personal experience of the proprietor of the respondent firm could not be of any help for assessment of the experience of the respondent firm. Thus, SAB/WAB in their meeting dated 26-8-99 declined to declare the tender documents of the respondent No. 4 as formal. Thereafter, on 19-11-99 the SAB/WAB reversed their earlier stand, apparently based on consideration of fresh opinion given by the Law Secretary and declared the tender papers of the respondent No. 4 as formal. The said decision reads as follows :- "PROCEEDINGS OF SAB/WAB MEETING HELD ON 19-11-1999. SAB was of the view based upon the opinion given by Law Secretary that in the light of the Supreme Court Order, experience of the individual would have to be considered while considering the experience of the firm. Therefore, in so far the issue of experience is concerned, the tender of M/s. Victor Engineers, Calcutta may be treated as formal. The Department may reprocess the case in the light of the above decision and bring it before SAB." Whether the decision of the SAB/WAB taken on 19-11-99 is correct? Therefore, in so far the issue of experience is concerned, the tender of M/s. Victor Engineers, Calcutta may be treated as formal. The Department may reprocess the case in the light of the above decision and bring it before SAB." Whether the decision of the SAB/WAB taken on 19-11-99 is correct? Obviously the decision was taken at the instance of the Law Secretary who had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment in New Horizons supra where the Supreme Court observed that it is the men behind the firm and their competence and proficiency would be determinative in taking a decision. But nowhere it is stated in the aforesaid judgment that documents submitted subsequently and not in conformity with the NIT specification could be taken into account for assessing the capability of a firm. 18. It would appear from the first two proceedings of the SAB/WAB that the initial decision not to treat the personal experience of a person as the experience of the firm was reversed in the second meeting. The reason for such reversal appears to be the opinion given by the Law Secretary as discussed before. While clarifying the reason for reversal of the decision, the learned Advocate General sought support from the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in para 23 of the judgment in New Horizons Ltd. supra. The ratio available in New Horizons is applicable while making a comparative assessment with regard to technological competence of a firm and not for the purpose of declaring invalid tender papers as valid. No reasonable explanation is discernible from the NIT specification. Admittedly, no certificate of experience/performance of the respondent-firm could be produced along with the tender papers or even thereafter. From the proceedings of the SAB/WAB dated 16-8-99, it is evident that representation was filed subsequently highlighting the personal experience and qualifications of the proprietor of the respondent-firm. These documents submitted subsequently along with a representation cannot form part of the record and the SAB/WAB was right in its decision on 16-8-99 to refuse to set on those documents. 19. However, in the meeting dated 19-11-99, in reversal to the earlier decision, the SAB/WAB treated the personal experience of the proprietor of the respondent-firm as the experience of the firm and on such approach declared the tender documents of the respondent-firm as formal. 19. However, in the meeting dated 19-11-99, in reversal to the earlier decision, the SAB/WAB treated the personal experience of the proprietor of the respondent-firm as the experience of the firm and on such approach declared the tender documents of the respondent-firm as formal. The proceedings of the meeting dated 19-11-1999 is cryptic and devoid of any reason. In a sweeping conclusion, depending on the opinion given by the Law Secretary, the SAB/WAB took the decision. In New Horizons Ltd. supra the Supreme Court held as follows :- "The new company, though having persons with experience in the field, has no experience in its name while the original company having experience in its name lacks persons with experience. The requirement regarding experience does not mean that the offer of the original company must be considered because it has experience in its name though it does not have experienced persons with it and ignore the offer of the new company because it does not have experience in its name though it has persons having experience in the field. While considering the requirement regarding experience it has to be borne in mind that the said requirement is contained in a document inviting offers for a commercial transaction. The terms and conditions of such a document have to be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessmen. When a businessman enters into a contract whereunder some work is to be performed he seeks to assure himself about the credentials of the person who is to be entrusted with the performance of the work. Such credentials are to be examined from a commercial point of view which means that if the contract is to be entered with a company he will look into the background of the company and the persons who are in control of the same and their capacity to execute the work. He would go not by the name of the company but by the persons behind the company. While keeping in view the past experience he would also take note of the present state of affairs and the equipment and resources at the disposal of the company. The same has to be the approach of the authorities while considering a tender received in response to the advertisement issued on 22-4-1993." 20. While keeping in view the past experience he would also take note of the present state of affairs and the equipment and resources at the disposal of the company. The same has to be the approach of the authorities while considering a tender received in response to the advertisement issued on 22-4-1993." 20. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment is relevant for the purpose of assessment of the competency of a firm. It appears the decision making authority to look into the background of the Company and the persons in control of the same and their capability to execute the work. Their decision cannot be interpreted so as to vest unbridled powers with the decision making Body to declare tender papers as formal which were otherwise informal as per NIT specification. If we go by the law as interpreted by the Apex Court, the SAB/WAB must be rigorously held to the standards specified in the NIT. As such its decision of reversal was wrong. 21. At this stage, it would be pertinent to dispose of the contention of the respondents that the writ petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the decision of the SAB/WAB in declaring the tender documents of the respondent-firm as formal because of a decision given by this Court in earlier litigations between the parties. Mr. U. B. Saha, learned State Counsel and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submitted that the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 4 was disposed of after a statement was made by the learned Government Advocate that the Government decided the tender document of the Respondent No. 4 as formal and, therefore, the decision rendered in the said writ petition would operate as res judicata so far the question regarding validity of the tender documents is concerned. I have perused the aforesaid order. In my considered opinion, the order does not reflect the view and opinion of the Court. In fact, there is no formal judicial expression on the issue. What is stated by this Court in the said writ petition is that since both the parties have been brought at par and final decision is yet to be taken, the writ petition became infructuous. Observing thus, the writ petition was disposed of. Therefore, the question of res judicata does not arise. 22. What is stated by this Court in the said writ petition is that since both the parties have been brought at par and final decision is yet to be taken, the writ petition became infructuous. Observing thus, the writ petition was disposed of. Therefore, the question of res judicata does not arise. 22. Thereafter, on 18-1-2000 this Body decided to award the contract finally in favour of the respondent firm. The proceedings of the meeting read as follows :- "PROCEEDING OF THE SAB/WAB MEETING HELD ON 18-1-2000. In view of the instructions issued by Finance Department, the SAB held that the loading of interest on the advance payment was not proper, since the tenderer had stated that he would accept the terms of payment as specified in the tender documents and had requested for advance payment subject to the modification acceptable to the Govt. In this case, since the terms of payment of the NIT specified that no advance payment would be made by the Deptt., the request of the tenderer for advance payment would not be entertained and at the same time no loading of interest would be done, since the tenderer had requested and not demanded the advance. On this basis, since the lowest tenderer was M/s. Vector Engineers, Calcutta, the SAB approved the proposal of placing the supply/work order with M/s. Vector Engineers at the rate of Rs. 3,38,76,664.00 (the rate offered by M/s. PSC Engineers, Calcutta to the Deptt. on negotiation) with the following terms and conditions : (i) The above price is inclusive of ED, CST, Freight and Insurance FOR site. (ii) Local Tax : 4% tax on work contract is included in the above price. (iii) Local Sales Tax on Supply items shall be borne by the Deptt. in excess to the 4% work contract Tax. (iv) Price variation : The price is firm. (v) No advance payment will be made by the Department." 23. In the instant case, the proprietor of the respondent firm was undoubtedly an important partner of the petitioner firm playing a key role in its commercial activities. After separation, he has established the respondent-firm and thus the respondent-firm is equipped with his personal knowledge and experience. But that does not mean that merely because the proprietor has the personal experience and knowledge and all expertise with him, the firm established by him recently stands superior to the petitioner firm. After separation, he has established the respondent-firm and thus the respondent-firm is equipped with his personal knowledge and experience. But that does not mean that merely because the proprietor has the personal experience and knowledge and all expertise with him, the firm established by him recently stands superior to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm is also a reputed firm having a countable background and it has commissioned a number of similar projects in the State of Tripura. It has produced a bunch of certificates from different specified authorities to show its experience in similar nature of works. There is nothing on record to show that SAB/WAB after due consideration was of the opinion that after desertion of the petitioner-firm by the proprietor of the respondent-firm, the petitioner-firm has become totally bankrupt and not competent to execute the work. The SAB/WABin its meeting dated 18-1-2000 while taking a decision to award the contract to the respondent firm did not make any comparative assessment of technical know-how between the two firms.Nowhere in the proceeding dated 18-1-2000, it has been indicated that after desertion of the petitioner-firm by the owner of the respondent-firm, the former firm was become completely ineffective. The SAB/WAB has not considered other factors like manpower, machinery power and the skill and proficiency of the persons in control of the firm. In fact, there is no discussion on any of these essential requirements so as to relegate the respondent-firm as superior to the petitioner-firm. Unless a decision to this effect is arrived at with adequate reason, the decision taken by this supreme decision making authority to award the contract in favour of the respondent-firm cannot be placed above board. The proceedings of the meeting shows that the SAB/WAB decided to favour the respondent-firm merely because the tender documents of the respondent-firm was declared formal by it in an earlier meeting in blatant disregard to the notes of the Engineers reproduced above. 24. That apart, the Board did not make any deliberation on the price factor. It did not breach upon on this crucial matter in its meeting dated 18-1-2000 when final decision was taken. It in a sweeping conclusion the Board decided to place the contract with the respondent-firm at the rate negotiated with the petitioner-firm without reference to the respondent-firm. 24. That apart, the Board did not make any deliberation on the price factor. It did not breach upon on this crucial matter in its meeting dated 18-1-2000 when final decision was taken. It in a sweeping conclusion the Board decided to place the contract with the respondent-firm at the rate negotiated with the petitioner-firm without reference to the respondent-firm. It appears that the Board had the least doubt that the respondent-firm would accept the offer at any price they dictate. Even if it is not suggestive of a pre-concerted move, at least it casts a spell of abysmal doubt obscurant of transparency. 25. The documents submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate include a comparative chart (C.S.). This chart shows that the petitioner-firm quoted Rs. 3,73,02,548/- while the respondent-firm quoted Rs. 3,74,90,013/- in their render documents. The relevant part of the chart is quoted below :- "The comparison of the price offer of different tenderers are placed below :- Sl.No. Item M/s PSC Engineers Calcutta M/s Horizon Hi Tech. Calcutta M/s Techno Corpn. Agartala M/s United Steel Products, Agartala M/s Vector Engineers Calcutta .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 13. Total(inclusive of all) 3,73,02,548 (1st Lowest) .... .... .... 3,74,90,013.00 (2nd lowest) 26. It is obvious from the above quoted chart prepared by the State that the price bid of the petitioner-firm was lower than that of the respondent-firm. The authorities by an arithmetical exercise projected the respondent-firm as the lower bidder. However, after negotiation with the petitioner-firm, the price was brought down to Rs. 3,38,76,664/-. It is apparent that the petitioner-firm was the lowest bidder and its tender papers were formal and techno-commercially viable. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to settle the contract at the negotiated rate with the petitioner. The way the authorities disfavoured the petitioner-firm is impermissible. Element of bias and mala fide is apparent all through. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the Board has acted in an unjust and unfair manner in deciding to call upon the respondent-firm to execute the works, despite deficiency in their tender documents and price bid from inception. There is not a single word in the proceedings of the SAB/WAB to show how and why the respondent-firm was thought to be the best tenderer. There is not a single word in the proceedings of the SAB/WAB to show how and why the respondent-firm was thought to be the best tenderer. A State action must be supported by reasons. In my opinion, the impugned decision of the State is totally arbitrary, capricious and devoid of any sense of fair play. Every authority in the State Government is bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Law. The State authorities have failed to act properly and misdirected the course of decision making process. Thus, the petitioners rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution have been infringed. 27. It was vehemently argued by the learned Government Advocate that any interference by this Court at this stage would delay the project in detriment to the public interest. I have considered this submission deeply. It would appear from the file that the tender documents were opened on 11-5-99 and after about 31/2 months the matter was placed before the SAB/WAB on 26-8-99. On that day the SAB decided that the representation submitted by the proprietor of the respondent firm could not be considered. Thereafter, the respondent authorities remained silent for about three months more. It was after institution of a writ petition by the respondent-firm the authorities again placed the matter before the SAB/WAB on 19-11-99 when the tender documents were declared to be formal. Even thereafter, it took about two months for the authorities concerned to take the final decision. The sense of urgency as is required in an important project like the one at hand has not been displayed by the authorities concerned at any point of time. 28. Even thereafter, it took about two months for the authorities concerned to take the final decision. The sense of urgency as is required in an important project like the one at hand has not been displayed by the authorities concerned at any point of time. 28. It would, therefore, appear from the discussion above that the SAB/WAB committed the following irregularities :- (i) The Board has taken into consideration certain documents of performance submitted belatedly in violation of the NIT specifications; (ii) The decision to award the contract to the respondent-firm has been taken merely because the proprietor of the respondent-firm has sufficient experience without undergoing any process of enquiry as to its overall competence to undertake an important project of this nature; (iii) There has been no comparative evaluation of the technical competence of the petitioner-firm and the respondent-firm; (iv) The decision has been taken in a sweep in the sense that there was no discussion as to how the petitioner-firm, although its offer was techno-commercially acceptable, was discarded; (v) There is no discussion about the price factor or opinion expressed about the acceptability of the price negotiated with the petitioner-firm. 29. The delay occasioned in taking the final decision is attributable to the endeavour made by the respondents to retrieve the respondent-firm by declaring its documents formal. This is evident from the fact that it was only after institution of a writ petition by the respondent No. 4, the authorities placed the matter before the Board which in turn took the decision on 19-11-1999 to declare the tender documents of respondent-firm as formal. There was obviously no reason for them to wait till the writ petition was filed. This period of incubation indicates that the final decision was delayed till a way found out to declare the respondent No. 4 as competent. 30. For reasons above, I am constraining to observe that the materials on record indicate that the authorities concerned fell into grave error while taking the decision. The exercise undertaken cannot be accepted to have been directed to select the test of the tenderers. Therefore, I decide to allow the writ petition and set aside the letter of intent issued in favour of the Respondent No. 4. 31. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the letter of intent issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside. Therefore, I decide to allow the writ petition and set aside the letter of intent issued in favour of the Respondent No. 4. 31. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the letter of intent issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside. The matter is referred back to the respondent-authorities to take a decision afresh after session in mind the observations made hereinbefore, specially those in paragraph 28. The State is directed to issue appropriate orders within a period of 15 days from today. 32. The fall-out of this order, if any, shall be borne by the State or the respondent No. 4, as the case may be, in view of specific direction given by this Court from time to time extending the undertaking given by the learned Govt. Advocate that they would not issue the works order during the pendency of the case. Petition allowed.