JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government dated 23.12.2016, whereby 1st respondent was informed that the recommendation to consider the tender of the petitioner who was the second lowest bidder for a contract PAC of Rs.22,29,27,687/- @ of 13.58 % below estimated PAC is not in agreement with the guidelines of CVC and hence not agreeable and for other related reliefs. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows ;- Petitioner is a PWD Contractor. Second respondent invited e-tender work of 'CRF 2015-16 improvements of Oduvallithattu - Naduvil - Kudiyanmala Road from km 0/000 to 18/000 in Kannur District. Petitioner and five others submitted their bids. From Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting of the technical bid evaluation committee held on 13.07.2016 it is evident that the 4th respondent had produced only provisional balance sheet as on 31st March 2016, contrary to the mandatory requirement of production of audited annual turnover statement. The committee wrongly accepted the bid which they are not entitled to and decided to consider his bid with the condition that the work will be awarded to the contractor only after getting the confirmation from the Chartered Accountant. Fourth respondent quoted the lowest amount and from Ext.P5 it is evident that the committee recommended the Chief Engineer, National Highway for taking necessary steps to submit the lowest tender received from the 4th respondent to the Government for placing before the tender committee after getting confirmation from the 4th respondent's Chartered Accountant. Exts.P6, P7 and P8 are the communications issued by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent calling upon the 4th respondent to produce the profit and loss statement for the year ended 31.03.2016. 3. On failure of the 4th respondent to produce the profit and loss statement for the year ended 2016 the 1st respondent by Ext.P10 communication informed the 4th respondent that he is disqualified from the work and action would be taken against him. Ext.P11 is the communication issued by the 1st respondent addressed to the 3rd respondent narrating all that transpired in the tender process including the alleged suspicion on the part of the 4th respondent in not providing the audited annual turnover statement. The 1st respondent also recommended the petitioner, being the second lowest bidder for consideration and award of the contract. Ext.P11 is the communication issued by the 1st respondent addressed to the 3rd respondent narrating all that transpired in the tender process including the alleged suspicion on the part of the 4th respondent in not providing the audited annual turnover statement. The 1st respondent also recommended the petitioner, being the second lowest bidder for consideration and award of the contract. However, 3rd respondent by Ext.P12 communication without assigning any reason, arbitrarily and unreasonably rejected the recommendation of the 1st respondent to award the contract to the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to seek compliance of clause 6.2 of Ext.P13 standard bid document for e-tendering issued by the Public Works Department. It is also stated that 1st respondent ought to have disqualified the 4th respondent at the technical stage itself and the recommendation in Ext.P5 that 4th respondent is the lowest bidder should have been rejected and the tender submitted by the petitioner ought to have been accepted as the lowest bid. It is apprehended by the petitioner that there is a proposal to re-tender the work, which if done will lead to arbitrariness and the transparency and secrecy expected in a tender process would be lost incurring heavy administrative burden and unbudgeted expenditure. It is in these background facts petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P12 and other related reliefs. 5. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and denying the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is submitted that the work was tendered through the e-tendering portal by the 2nd respondent on 20.05.2016 with last date of submission of document online as 07.06.2016 upto 4 P.M. The technical bid was opened on 23.06.2016 in the presence of the Evaluation Committee comprising the Chief Engineer and Senior Finance Officer, National Highways, Thiruvananthapuram, the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Thiruvananthapuram, the Executive Engineer National Highways Division, Kozhikode in charge of the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, North Circle, Kozhikode and the Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Kannur. It is also submitted that the bid opening committee decided to consider all the six bids submitted online and was admitted for evaluation. The bids were evaluated and considered by the evaluation committee in the meeting held on 13.07.2016 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also submitted that the bid opening committee decided to consider all the six bids submitted online and was admitted for evaluation. The bids were evaluated and considered by the evaluation committee in the meeting held on 13.07.2016 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Thiruvananthapuram. Since the 4th respondent has produced only the provisional balance sheet as on 31.03.2016, the committee decided to consider the above bid with the condition that the finalization of the tender will be only after getting the confirmation from the Chartered Accountant. The other bidders complied all the qualifying parameters, and based on the evaluation, the committee decided to qualify all the six bidders including that of the 4th respondent. 6. It is further submitted that subsequently the financial bids were opened in the presence of the committee members on 14.07.2016. The bids were verified and the comparative statement was prepared. The 4th respondent was the lowest bidder and the petitioner was the second lowest bidder with 22.47 % below and 13.58 below respectively. Fourth respondent being the lowest bidder, the committee authorized the 1st respondent to submit the lowest tender of the 4th respondent to Government for placing the same before the tender committee for approving the tender at his quoted amount of Rs.19,99,98,550.66/-, after getting confirmation from the Chartered Accountant. It is also submitted that the lowest bidder was qualified taking into consideration of the annual turn over statement submitted by him at the time of bidding. The statement was prepared and authenticated by the Contractor himself. This statement was considered by the evaluation committee. Since the month of May 2016, the audited statement will not be available to the Tax payee, the committee decided to consider this an un-audited self prepared annual statement from the 4th respondent subject to the condition that he has to produce the audited statement strictly. However, even after the repeated reminders from the office as well as oral instructions and telephonic instructions, till date the 4th respondent could not produce the audited annual turn over statement. So the Department suspects that there may be some difference on Account/Turn over already produced. It is also submitted that Department has already issued show cause notice to the 4th respondent on this subject and further action is being pursued. So the Department suspects that there may be some difference on Account/Turn over already produced. It is also submitted that Department has already issued show cause notice to the 4th respondent on this subject and further action is being pursued. Apart from the same, it is submitted that, since the Government has not issued specific direction with respect to the tender submitted by the petitioner. It was thereupon that 1st respondent has by office letter dated 03.01.2017 requested the Government to inform the next action to be taken from the office that is, whether to ask the petitioner to submit his consent for agreeing to lowest bidder's rate or go for re-tender. Further action can be taken only after getting reply from the Government in this regard. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 8. Even though notice is served on 4th respondent there is no appearance. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, 1st respondent has not taken into account clause 6.2 of Ext.P13 standard bid document which read thus. "6.2 In the eventuality of failure on the part of the lowest successful bidder to produce the original documents, or submit the performance security, the Bidder shall be debarred in future from participating in all the Bids for three years and will be recommended for blacklisting by the competent authority. In such a situation, the next successful bidder will be requested to produce further documents for consideration of his bid at his quoted rate. Otherwise the tender will be cancelled." 9. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since 4th respondent failed to comply with the stipulations contained under Ext.P13 respondents are duty bound to request the petitioner to produce further documents for consideration of his bid at his quoted rate, since he being the second lowest tenderer. Admittedly, petitioner is the second lowest tenderer and therefore when 4th respondent failed to satisfy the stipulations contained under clause 6.2, 1st respondent was duty bound to make necessary arrangements to invite the petitioner for producing documents for consideration. Petitioner also has apprehension that the attempt of the respondents is to re-tender the work which is against the imperative conditions contained under clause 6.2. 10. Petitioner also has apprehension that the attempt of the respondents is to re-tender the work which is against the imperative conditions contained under clause 6.2. 10. Be that as it may, from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is clear that, 1st respondent has addressed the 3rd respondent State Government to provide necessary assistance so as to proceed further in the matter and a reply is awaited. Even though, as per Ext.P11 first respondent has recommended to invite the second lowest bidder, as per Ext.P12 the 3rd respondent has declined the same by stating that the tender submitted by the petitioner is not in agreement with the guidelines of CVC. 11. In my considered opinion, as per clause 6.2 when the lowest tenderer fails to satisfy the stipulations, a duty is cast upon respondents 1 to 3 to invite the second lowest bidder to submit further documents for consideration. That apart Ext.P12 is a non speaking order and it is not reflected therein what are the parameters or guidelines provided by the CVC in respect of the tender. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P12 order passed by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained under law being arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, I quash the same and consequentially direct respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking note of the stipulations contained under Ext.P13. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.