JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. - The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business in manufacturing and supplying High Security Holograms to different States, Authorities and Institutions. In this writ application the petitioner assails the decision of the State Government in the Department of Excise in directing for re-tender in respect of Tender No.1144/Ex./1-Ex-48/2010 dated 28.2.2011 for supply of Polyester Security Holograms (Excise Adhesive Labels) in super-session of the decision of the Tender Committee constituted for the purpose and further prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite party to issue work order, in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ application are that the State invited a tender for manufacturing and supplying of Polyester Security Holograms (Excise Adhesive Labels) to be affixed on the cap of IMFL bottles on 28.2.2011. A Tender Committee; was constituted by the State Government having a Technical Committee and an Expert Committee to evaluate the capability of the manufacturer and quality/standard of the High Security Holograms to be supplied. A corrigendum was issued on 21.3.2011 directing the tenderers to quote their price as per 1000 (one thousand) holograms. In response to the said Tender Call Notice, the petitioner submitted its tender in two parts i.e. Technical Bid and Price Bid. The other tenderers also submitted their bids in response to the said Tender Call Notice. The Technical Committee evaluated the tender documents of all the tenderers on 19.4.2011 and finalized the Technical Bids on 15.7.2011. The Technical Committee found only three tenderers to be qualified namely, the petitioner, Holoflex Ltd. and Alfa Lazertech Ltd. Accordingly, the petitioner and the above two tenderers, who had qualified during evaluation of technical bids, were invited by the Tender Committee for opening of the price bid on 23.7.2011. The price bids were opened in presence of all the three successful bidders including the petitioner and the petitioner having quoted the price of RS.192.90 per 1000 (one thousand) holograms became the lowest bidder amongst the technically qualified bidders. The petitioner was thereafter called for negotiation and after negotiation, the petitioner agreed to reduce the price from Rs.192.90 per 1000 (one thousand) to Rs.180.00 per 1000 (one thousand) holograms. The same was accepted by the Tender Committee. The petitioner was thereafter called for negotiation and after negotiation, the petitioner agreed to reduce the price from Rs.192.90 per 1000 (one thousand) to Rs.180.00 per 1000 (one thousand) holograms. The same was accepted by the Tender Committee. The recommendation of the Tender Committee was thereafter placed before the State Government in the Department of Excise for approval. Since there was unreasonable delay in issuance of the work order, a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 23.8.2011 requesting the Department to issue the work order. On 6.9.2011 "the petitioner received a letter from the State " Government intimating therein that the price offered by the petitioner in the quotation for printing and supplying of 1000 (one thousand) (Excise Adhesive Labels) as Rs.192.90 paisa was found to be lowest. But after negotiation the petitioner has mentioned in the writing that the offer price is RS.180.00 per 10,000 (ten thousand) holograms and directed the petitioner to clarify the matter. The petitioner in response to the said letter clarified that the tender notice and corrigendum issued by the Government clearly provided that the price to be quoted by the bidder should be for 100 holograms and, accordingly, after negotiation, the price quoted by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.180.00 should be for 1000 hologram and not for 10000 holograms, which has been inadvertently mentioned in the record at the time of negotiation. Such explanation of the petitioner was not accepted in spite of the recommendations made by the Authorities at all levels and a decision was taken to re-tender for which this writ application has been filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Secretary, Excise Department, Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar. It is stated in paragraph-5 of the said counter affidavit the Technical Committee evaluated the tender of all the tenderers and finalized the technical bid on 15.7.2011 in which three tenderers were found to be qualified namely, the petitioner, Holoflex Ltd. and Alfa Lazertech Ltd. Thereafter the Tender Committee opened the price bid. The petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder amongst the three technical bidders having quoted the price of Rs.190.90 paisa per 1000 holograms. The Tender Committee called the representative of the petitioner for negotiation and ultimately the representative of the petitioner agreed to supply 10000 holograms at the price of Rs.180/- before the Tender Committee. The petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder amongst the three technical bidders having quoted the price of Rs.190.90 paisa per 1000 holograms. The Tender Committee called the representative of the petitioner for negotiation and ultimately the representative of the petitioner agreed to supply 10000 holograms at the price of Rs.180/- before the Tender Committee. This fact having been admitted by the petitioner and the petitioner having later not agreed to supply the holograms at the rate of RS.180/- per 10000 holograms, the Government was pleased to direct for re-tender. 4. Shri A.K. Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court not only to the notice inviting tender but also the corrigendum and with reference to the corrigendum, Shri Parija submitted that the tenderers were required to quote the price for 1000 number of holograms and, accordingly, the petitioner had quoted the price of RS.192.90 per 1000 number of holograms. Subsequently at the time of negotiation, after the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, the petitioner agreed to supply 1000 holograms at the rate of Rs.180/-, but inadvertently the representative of the petitioner had written that the rate at which the petitioner is willing to supply the holograms is Rs.180/- per 10000 holograms. According to the learned Senior Counsel, It was a mistake/error on the part of the representative of the petitioner to quote the price of RS.180/- per 10000 holograms in stead of 1000 holograms. The Tender Committee therefore realized the same and recommended for approval of the Tender submitted by the petitioner and the recommendation of the Tender Committee was also accepted by the Principal Secretary of the concerned Department but ultimately the Government took a decision for re-tendering. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State Authorities produced the relevant records and submitted that at the time of negotiation, the petitioner offered the price of RS.180/- per 10000 holograms in writing and later the petitioner offered a clarification that it was mistake on the part of the representative of the petitioner to write the offer price at Rs 180/- per 10000 instead of 1000 holograms. According to the learned Advocate General, the State had rightly taken a decision for re-tender. 4. According to the learned Advocate General, the State had rightly taken a decision for re-tender. 4. Annexure-1 is the notice inviting tender, wherein sealed tenders under two bid systems were invited from the licensed and reputed manufactures for master organizations having the eligibility criteria for printing of Excise Adhesive Labels (EALs) and supplying of the same to Government of Orissa for affixing on the caps of IMFL and Beer bottles as per specifications and terms and conditions mentioned, in the tender document. Notice inviting tender was issued on 28.2.26.11. The corrigendum was issued thereafter intimating therein that the tenders/bidders were required to indicate the price both in figure and words per 1000 number of holograms of size mentioned therein. In response to the 'said notice inviting tender, six tenders were received by the Department including that of the petitioner. The Technical Committee evaluated all the six tenders and found the three tenderers/bidders to be technically qualified i.e. the petitioner, Holoflex Ltd. and Alfa Lazertech Ltd.. Accordingly, the price bids of the petitioner and other two tenderers/bidders were opened and it was found that the price quoted by the petitioner i.e. Rs.192.90 paisa per 1000 holograms was the lowest. During negotiation with the petitioner, the price was reduced by the petitioner from Rs.192.90 to Rs.180/- per 1000 holograms. Unfortunately, the representative of the petitioner, who was present at the time of negotiation, wrote the following: "final negotiated and offered price. Rs.180.00 per 10,000 holograms". 5. In spite of the above, the Tender Committee on 23rd July, 2011 while recommending the bid submitted by the petitioner for approval observed as follows :- "The Price Bids of the bidder companies who qualified in the Technical Bid were opened in the presence of their representatives. The comparative statement of the price quoted by the Bidder companies is placed in Annexure-'A'. The price quoted by M/s. HOLOSTIK INDIA LTD. for printing and supply of 1000 EALs i.e. RS.192.90 is the lowest. After negotiation the company agreed to supply the EALs @ 180.00 per 1000 and it was accepted". When the matter was ultimately placed before the Minister, Planning and Co-ordination Excise Orissa, the following order was passed. "Scrutiny of the price bid placed at P-282/C offered by the Holostik India Limited reveals that the final negotiated offered price submitted by the above firm is Rs.180 per 10,000 (Ten thousand) Hologram EAL. When the matter was ultimately placed before the Minister, Planning and Co-ordination Excise Orissa, the following order was passed. "Scrutiny of the price bid placed at P-282/C offered by the Holostik India Limited reveals that the final negotiated offered price submitted by the above firm is Rs.180 per 10,000 (Ten thousand) Hologram EAL. It is astonishing how the Tender Committee resolved on 23.07.2011 to recommend RS.180 per 1000 (One thousand) Hologram at P-290/C. The final negotiated offered price i.e. RS.180 per 10,000 (Ten thousand) is accepted by the tenderer on 23.7.2011. In view of the serious discrepancy and lapses noticed on the face of the record I am not inclined to accept the recommendation of the Tender Committee. I feel the Tender process is vitiated at the finalization stage. So to avoid any legal complicacy this may' please be put to re-tender." Thereafter the Principal Secretary to Government Excise Department was directed to clarify the matter and the Principal Secretary gave the following note. " "(1) The tender was for the rate per 100 EAL (not 10,000). The figure in the tender document is 1000 (and not 10000 EAL). (2) The price bid of Holostik clearly mentions the rate as Rs.192.30 per 1000 EAL (not 10,000). Upon negotiation, it came down to Rs.180/- per 1000 EAL. In the tender Committee meeting proceeding, it has been clearly mentioned the rate (Rs.180/-) is per 1000 EAL (not 10,000) (3) The negotiation was on, the rate, not on the number which was fixed in the tender document and, as such, unchangeable. (4) The price bids of other Companies were higher than that of Holostik and were, therefore, rejected. (5) The rate per EAL in the 2007 tender was 15 paise (Rs.150/ - per 1000 EAL). It is absurd that it can be 1.8. paise in 2011-after four years. (6) The above clearly shows that the figure 10,000' was an error. The Company concerned (Holostik) has admitted the mistake and expressed regrets. (7) The tender is not yet final since the recommendation of the Tender Committee has not yet been approved by the Minister, Excise. (8) Government may approve the recommendation of the Tender Committee treating the figure 10,000 as a bonafide mistake or order re-tender, as Govt. may think fit. The Company concerned (Holostik) has admitted the mistake and expressed regrets. (7) The tender is not yet final since the recommendation of the Tender Committee has not yet been approved by the Minister, Excise. (8) Government may approve the recommendation of the Tender Committee treating the figure 10,000 as a bonafide mistake or order re-tender, as Govt. may think fit. (9) The A.F.A.-Cum-Under Secretary, Excise Department who is in charge of the EAL tender may be cautioned to be fore careful in future." The file was thereafter placed before the Chief Secretary and it was observed that the L 1 rate recommended by the Tender Committee for 1,000 EAL may be approved. After these clarifications when the matter was again placed before the Hon'ble Minister, Planning and Coordination Excise, Orissa, the following order was passed. "Perused the note from P-78/N to P-80/N along with the views of Chief Secretary and documents placed in file. While recommending, the Tender Committee appears to have not taken into account the final negotiated price of the firm and thus, prima facie, it does not appear to be in conformity with the final negotiated price of the firm. In view of the same, it may not be proper to jump to a conclusion that inadvertent error has crept in, particularly when it is a substantive nature. Hence, for better transparency it would be proper, and ideal for re-tendering. Accordingly, this may be re-tendered. The present supplier may be asked to extend the contract with the existing approved terms and conditions, until the new tender is finalized. 6. Shri Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also produced copies of these documents obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. From the note submitted by the Addl. Secretary, who has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the State, it appears that after verification of the entire record, he was of the opinion that there was some writing error committed inadvertently, which should be ignored. 7. From the note submitted by the Principal Secretary to Government Excise Department, it appears that the rate per EAL for the year 2007 was 15 paisa i.e. Rs.150/- per 1000 EAL and, therefore in the year 2011 after four years the price cannot be 1.8 paisa per EAL i.e. RS.18/- per 1000 EAL. 7. From the note submitted by the Principal Secretary to Government Excise Department, it appears that the rate per EAL for the year 2007 was 15 paisa i.e. Rs.150/- per 1000 EAL and, therefore in the year 2011 after four years the price cannot be 1.8 paisa per EAL i.e. RS.18/- per 1000 EAL. Therefore, the Principal Secretary was also of the view that the figure ten thousand written by the representative of the petitioner is an error and the petitioner has also admitted the mistake and expressed regrets. The Principal Secretary in his note also requested the Government to approve the recommendation of the Tender Committee treating the figure ten thousand as a bonafide mistake. In view of the above, we are also of the view that writing figure ten thousand at the time of negotiation was definitely a bonafide mistake on the part of the representative of the petitioner and for all purposes, it should have been treated as Rs.180/ - per 1000 holograms. The reason given by the Principal Secretary with reference to the rate prevalent in the year 2007 should have persuaded the Hon'ble Minister to accept the recommendation of not only the Addl. Secretary but also the Principal Secretary of the Excise Department as well as the Chief Secretary. 8. We, accordingly, allow the writ application, direct the opposite party not order-tender and accept the offer of the petitioner at Rs.180/per 1000 EAL and issue work order without further delay. Application allowed.