JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. M Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr R.P. Kakoti, the learned senior counsel appears for the respondents 2 and 3. A tender notice was published on 16.2.2012 (Annexure-1) for improvement and maintenance of the internal roads in the campus of the IIT, Guwahati and the tender of the petitioner at Rs.2,38,88,248/- was found to be the lowest (L-1) amongst the five tenderers. But after the estimated value of the work was revised from Rs.1,78,45,000/- to Rs.3,11,89,176.29, the settling authorities decided to allot the work to M/S Tectonicsco, whose bid was found to be acceptable on the ground that, the offer of M/S Tectonicsco at Rs.2,80,60,454.91 was within 10.03% of the revised estimate for the work in question. As the L-1 bid of the petitioner was ignored, he challenges the process of the IIT authorities. 2. The petitioner accepts the position that under CPWD Works Manual (hereinafter referred to as "CPWD Manual") the estimate of the work can be revised but the petitioner contends that when estimates are revised and the contract terms are changed, the participating contractors are required to be notified on the changes, prior to opening of the tenders. 3. The petitioner further contends that if the respondents wish to take into account the revised estimate for selection of a contractor by ignoring the L-1 bid, they ought to have notified the tenderes of their intent, before the financial bids were opened. In that event fairness and transparency could have been ensured since revised estimate as well as the likelihood of the work being awarded in accordance with Clause 19.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual, would be known beforehand to the participating contractors. 4. Mr RP Kakoti, on the other hand, refers to the minutes of the evaluation report of the Tender Committee which considered the initial estimate and recommended revised estimate. He submits that the revision of estimate is permissible and since the contract estimate was revised on acceptable methodology, the decision not to award the contract to the L-1 bidder (petitioner) was justified as otherwise, the quality of the work would have been compromised. 5. A reading of the minute of the tender Committee's proceedings shows that no date is incorporated by any of the four signatories to the proceedings of the meeting. But the Director of the IIT appears to have given his approval on 5.3.2012. 5. A reading of the minute of the tender Committee's proceedings shows that no date is incorporated by any of the four signatories to the proceedings of the meeting. But the Director of the IIT appears to have given his approval on 5.3.2012. But all this was in the internal notesheet and the change in the contract value was never notified to the contractors. 6. In the instant case, the financial bids were opened on 12.3.2012 and comparative statement of the 5 bidders was prepared. Thereafter the Committee took into account the revised estimate and found that 2 bidders had quoted below the revised estimate and their bids were accordingly rejected. Then the remaining 3 bids were considered and it was found that those bids were in the range of 10.03%, 7.17% and 1.13%, below the revised estimate of Rs.3,11,89,176.29. Noting that one bid is within 10.03% of the revised estimate, the Building and Works Committee (B & W C) in the 68th Meeting held on 9.4.2012, under agenda item No. 4, recommended the award of the contract to M/S Tectonicsco at their quoted rate of Rs.2,80,60,455/-. 7. In the above backdrop, this Court is required to examine whether the decision making process is vitiated through unfairness and lack of transparency. To avoid arbitrary decision in tender process, apart from the CPWD works Manual, the General Conditions of Contract are applicable for the works under the IIT. Clause 19.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual allows acceptance of tenders when the bids are within 10% of the revised estimate. That apart, under Clause-8 of the general conditions, the participating tenderers are required to be informed about all clarification/modification of the contract terms. This clause(s) being relevant are extracted as hereunder:- 19.4.3.2 Acceptance of tenders at justified rates with allowable variations Apropos provisions under para 19.4.3 variation up to 5% over the justified rates may be ignored. Variation up to 10% may be allowed for peculiar situations and in special circumstances. Reasons for doing so shall be placed on record. Tenders above this limit should not be accepted. ..................... ..................... 8. Agenda/Corrigenda: 8.1. Agenda/corrigenda to the tender document may be issued prior to the date of opening of the tenders to clarify documents or to reflect modification in the design or contract terms. Reasons for doing so shall be placed on record. Tenders above this limit should not be accepted. ..................... ..................... 8. Agenda/Corrigenda: 8.1. Agenda/corrigenda to the tender document may be issued prior to the date of opening of the tenders to clarify documents or to reflect modification in the design or contract terms. 8.2 Each agenda/corrigenda issued by the owner will be distributed in duplicate to each person or organisation to whom a set of tender documents has been issued. Each tenderer will retain one copy of each agenda/Corrigenda for submission along with his tender and return one signed copy to the Engineer-in-charge as acknowledgement of receipt of the same. All agenda/corrigenda issued by the owner shall become part of tender documents. 8. As can be seen from above, allowable variation under Clause 19.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual is permissible only upto 10% and that too for peculiar situations and in special circumstances. Moreover under Clause 8 of the General Conditions of Contract, the corrigendum should be issued when contract terms are modified. The owner (IIT) is then required to furnish the corrigendum as it becomes part of the tender documents, to all the contractors to whom the tender documents were issued. 9. In the above backdrop, the impact of not informing the contractors about the revision of estimate will have to be assessed. In this case, firstly the petitioner's tender was rejected although it was the L-1 bid. Next without disclosing to the contractors on the revised estimate, the B & WC considered the other bids under Clause 19.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual. 10. The Owner in a tender process may reject a tenderer but when the L-1 tenderer is not taken into account, one has to examine the decision making process with greater care. The respondents contend that each participating tenderers were aware that the estimate of the work is likely to be revised and therefore it is unnecessary to notify the revised estimate. But being aware of the possibility of revision and being actually informed of the revised estimate can't be the same thing. Here, although the revised value of the work was approved, the same was not disclosed to any of the contractors, before their price bids were opened on 10.3.2012. 11. But being aware of the possibility of revision and being actually informed of the revised estimate can't be the same thing. Here, although the revised value of the work was approved, the same was not disclosed to any of the contractors, before their price bids were opened on 10.3.2012. 11. The bid of the recommended tenderer is admittedly a little beyond the 10% permissible outer limit (under Clause 19.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual) and yet their bid found acceptability with the respondents. 12. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that integrity and credibility of the decision making process was violated in the instant case. As the respondents failed to notify the revised estimate to the contractors, as required under Clause-8 of the General Conditions of Contract, the possibility of unfairness in the process of selection can't be ruled out particularly when, the L-1 bidder was ignored. As the respondents had not notified the revised estimate before the price bids were opened, I feel that the recommendation made in favour of M/S Tectonicsco can't be sustained as it was based on an undisclosed revised estimate. Consequently the resolution i.e. item No.4 in the 68th Meeting of the Building and Works Committee dated 9.4.2012 is held to be vitiated and the same is quashed. The owner (IIT) may accordingly reconsider all the valid bids and award the contract to the most competitive (L-1) bidder. But if the revised estimate, a raise of 74.78%, is a hurdle for reconsideration, the IIT Authorities are at liberty to initiate a fresh tender process. The case is accordingly allowed without any order on cost.