ORDER : ” The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram on behalf of the Government of Mizoram invited Sealed Item Rates/Percentage Rate Tender from approved and eligible Contractor of PWD and firms for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn and construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn by NIT dated 21-2-2014. The petitioner in response to the NIT submitted his bid for the construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn. The tender documents were opened on 18-3-2014 wherein along-with the petitioner there were two other bidders and the petitioner bid was found to be the lowest. While the petitioner was waiting for finalization of the NIT, the respondents through the Superintending Engineer, i.e. respondent No. 5 issued a notice dated 4-4-2014 informing that the NIT for Group No. 1 and 2 for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I and II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn was cancelled due to technical reason. The petitioner had also sought information from the RTI and he was informed that there was certain mistake committed in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) resulting in the decision to cancel the NIT. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents. 3. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the petitioner had tendered his bid document which was opened on 18.2.2014. There were 3 bidders, amongst which the petitioner” s bid was found to be the lowest and in the comparative statement for the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the respondents had indicated that there are 3 tenderers and all the tenderers are responsive. Further, the Executive Engineer (P), PWD, Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram has certified that he has personally conducted a test check of all the computed and checked tenders and have satisfied himself that the checking work has been properly done and that the comparative statement correctly incorporates the totals as checked on the individual tenders. Further, the Executive Engineer (P), PWD, Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram has certified that he has personally conducted a test check of all the computed and checked tenders and have satisfied himself that the checking work has been properly done and that the comparative statement correctly incorporates the totals as checked on the individual tenders. However, the respondent No. 5 had observed on the comparative statement that there are a number of mistake/discrepancies in the tender BOQ which may lead to number of problems in execution. It was on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5 that the said noting was approved by the higher authorities leading to the cancellation of the NIT. He submits that amongst the 3 tenderers, the petitioner was found to be the lowest and when the comparative statement was prepared, all the tenders were found to be responsive. This being the admitted position, it was duty bound on the part of the respondents to have awarded the work to the petitioner instead of cancelling the NIT solely on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5. 4. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel also submits that the respondent No. 5 while cancelling the NIT had only cited the cause for cancellation as being due to technical reason and nothing else. This being the position, the notice dated 4.4.2014 is not tenable inasmuch as it was a notice without any explanation made therein. In the list of mistake committed in the BOQ which was also enclosed along with the notice dated 4.4.2014, it can be seen that such mistake were very minimal giving no cause for any reason to have a technical mistake. The NIT is only floated after proper technical checking by the respondents. Therefore, when the NIT was floated and the tender papers were opened, a comparative statement was prepared showing that the tenderers are responsive to the NIT. The respondents had cancelled the NIT with ulterior motives and not as indicated by the respondents in the notice dated 4.4.2014. He submits that the list of mistakes committed in the BOQ as maintained by the State respondents is misconceived inasmuch as all the bidders were advised to go through the complete tender documents and have a spot verification of the work site before they finalize their offering rates. He submits that the list of mistakes committed in the BOQ as maintained by the State respondents is misconceived inasmuch as all the bidders were advised to go through the complete tender documents and have a spot verification of the work site before they finalize their offering rates. The bidders including the petitioner, were therefore, fully aware of the requirement of the work for which the tender was invited and therefore the rates offered by the tenderers including the petitioner were reasonable and workable and that the ground taken by the respondents for cancelling the NIT was only hyper-technical which would not affect the execution of the work in any manner. He also submits that the CPWD Work Manual 2012 permits for negotiation when it becomes necessary to do so and such negotiation is to be restricted only to the lowest tenders. The petitioner being the lowest bidder, the respondents were expected to have at least negotiated with the petitioner even if assuming that there were mistakes in the BOQ. However, respondents had just resorted to cancel the NIT citing technical reason which clearly indicates that their whole intention was to eliminate the petitioner. 5. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel further submits that after the NIT was cancelled, the petitioner had challenged the cancellation of the work insofar as the construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn. However, as regard Block-II, there was no challenge made and therefore the respondents have proceeded to float fresh tender as regards the said work. The petitioner through the RTI had sought information regarding the comparative statement for the fresh NIT dated 10.7.2014 for construction of the 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II. From the information received, he submits that the comparative statement of the fresh NIT as regard the 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II would indicate that there is absolutely no change in the quantity and tender rates. However, there are some minimal changes in the description of items which does not warrant the term ' technical reason' Œ for cancellation of the first NIT. However, there are some minimal changes in the description of items which does not warrant the term ' technical reason' Œ for cancellation of the first NIT. This being the admitted position, he submits that even if the respondents floats a fresh NIT as regard Block-I to which the petitioner is concerned, the same would amount to wastage of time and therefore the reasons given by the respondents is not tenable and the respondents should be directed to award the work to the petitioner as he is the lowest tenderer and his quotations are within the workable rates without going for a fresh tender. 6. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram submits that the reason for cancellation of the NIT is due to the mistake/discrepancies in the tender Bill of Quantities (BOQ). There was incomplete wording and mistakes in the BOQ which would have created a number of problems between the Contractor and the Engineer thereby leading to a compromise in the quality of the work which would not be in public interest. He further submits that cancellation of the NIT does not amount to debarring the petitioner from submitting his tender document again but the whole intention of the respondents is to clarify all the discrepancies that have occurred in the BOQ and thereby allowing the tenderer(s) to appreciate such requirement which was not disclosed in the BOQ and thereafter prepare their rates which could be acceptable to both the parties. When there is discrepancies in the BOQ, it leads to a number of problems thereby creating confusion and also causing delay in finalization of the work and in particular compromising the quality of work. He also submits that the decision to cancel the NIT was taken in a transparent manner without any extraneous consideration and therefore this Court should not interfere in the cancellation of the NIT which is within the prerogative of the respondents. He also submits that it is already settled position of law that insofar as award of contract are concerned, this Court may scrutinize the decision making process only and if the decision making process is found to be just and proper, normally, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the respondents. He also submits that it is already settled position of law that insofar as award of contract are concerned, this Court may scrutinize the decision making process only and if the decision making process is found to be just and proper, normally, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the respondents. He also submits that due to wrong entry of description of items had led to wrong detailed estimate which had culminated in the discrepancies in the BOQ in many of the items. This being purely technical and as this Court does not have the expertise to scrutinize or come to a conclusion that such mistake/wrong entry may or may not have any consequence, the same should be best left to the respondents and therefore submits that the present writ petition be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the records produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram. 8. The NIT was floated on 21.2.2014 inviting sealed Items Rates/Percentage Rates tender from approved and eligible Contractor of PWD and firms having experience for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn and construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn. The present writ petition is confined for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn. After the tender papers were opened, a comparative statement was prepared wherein the rates offered by all the three tenderers were found to be responsive. However, on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 4 that there were mistake/discrepancies in the tendered BOQ, the respondents had decided to cancel the NIT by notice dated 4.4.2014. From the list of mistakes committed in the BOQ of the NIT dated 21.2.2014, it can be seen that as regard BOQ Serial Nos. 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24, 43, 48, 51, 66, 72 and 75, there were some errors. The details of mistakes/errors committed against the said BOQ Serial Nos. are quoted herein below: ' Detail of mistakes committed Whether it is (a) Light Jungle, (b) Medium jungle or (c) Heavy jungle is not mentioned in the BOQ. 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24, 43, 48, 51, 66, 72 and 75, there were some errors. The details of mistakes/errors committed against the said BOQ Serial Nos. are quoted herein below: ' Detail of mistakes committed Whether it is (a) Light Jungle, (b) Medium jungle or (c) Heavy jungle is not mentioned in the BOQ. It is insufficient specification which may create confusion to the field Engineer as well as the contractor as it has got different rates. Classification of soil is not mentioned in the BOQ which is incomplete specification. As per SOR 2013, there are 6 classes of soil whose rates are all different from each other. As the BOQ does not mention the class of soil, it is not known how the contractor has quoted the rates. Same as above, the location where treatment has to be applied is not mentioned in the BOQ as the rate is varried depending on the location as per SOR 2013. Due to incomplete wording in the BOQ, the specification becomes exactly as per item No.21.06 of SOR 2013. However, the item put to BOQ is item No.21.18 of SOR 2013 whose rate is much higher than item No.21.06 of SOR 2013. There is no specification for 1 cement: 3 coarse sand is the SOR. Due to typing mistake BOQ of this item seems completely wrong. Due to incomplete wording in the BOQ, the specification becomes exactly same as per item No.21.08 of SOR 2013. However, the item put to BOQ is item No.21.20 whose rate is much higher than item No.21.08 of SOR 2013. Due to incomplete wording in the BOQ, the actual specification cannot be understood. In the main description, it is synthetic enamel paint. But in the sub head it becomes emulsion paint which is completely wrong. The rates used for this item while preparing BOQ is as per item No.21.06 of SOR. Because of this some of the tenderer has quoted abnormally high/ low rates. Due to incomplete wording the size of wash basin is not mentioned in the BOQ. As per SOR 2013, there are 2 sizes viz.630 x 450 cm and 450 x 300 cm which has got different rate. The rates used for this item while preparing BOQ is as per item No.18.08 of SOR for Ordinary Brass. Due to incomplete wording the size of wash basin is not mentioned in the BOQ. As per SOR 2013, there are 2 sizes viz.630 x 450 cm and 450 x 300 cm which has got different rate. The rates used for this item while preparing BOQ is as per item No.18.08 of SOR for Ordinary Brass. The rates used for this item while preparing BOQ is as per item No.18.09 of SOR. The BOQ does not mention whether it is internal or external which has got different rates' Œ. 9. In the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 760 : ( AIR 2014 SC 390 ), the Hon” ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ' 8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So, also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process.' Œ 10. So, also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process.' Œ 10. Further in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier, ( AIR 2014 SC 390 , Para 10) (supra), it has been held at Paragraph 11 as under : ' 11. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, ( AIR 2012 SC 2915 , Pp. 2922-2923, Paras 19 & 10) the legal position on the subject was summed up after a comprehensive review and principles of law applicable to the process for judicial review identified in the following words: (SCC p. 229, paras 23-24) ' 23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited; (c) in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) certain preconditions or qualification for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) if the State of its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 20. 20. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ' the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” ? and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226' Œ. (Emphasis supplied)' Œ 11. This Court has considered the comparative statement with regard to the 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn which has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A perusal of the same would indicate that the quantity unit and tender rates are identical. However, in the description of item some changes have been made. This was the reason that the respondents have cited in the notice dated 4.4.2014 while cancelling the first NIT. The decision taken by the respondents was on the basis of the errors/mistake that had occurred in the BOQ and that the decision was taken after the comparative statement was prepared. After perusing the records, this Court finds that there is no indication of any extraneous consideration while making the decision for cancellation of the NIT. It can also be seen that the cancellation of the NIT was not intended to favour any particular party but the same was a consensus decision keeping in mind the quality of work and also in public interest. 12. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution has very limited scope to adjudicate on contractual matter more particularly when technicalities are involved inasmuch as this Court does not have the expertise to consider such technicalities. Considering the lists of discrepancies that had occurred on the BOQ, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no arbitrariness in the decisions of the respondents to cancel the NIT dated 21.2.2014. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned notice dated 4.4.2014. 13. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned notice dated 4.4.2014. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.