ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, Govt. of Assam for the respondents. 2. All the writ petitions are based on identical facts, raising a common question of law. Hence, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Question for consideration in this bunch of writ petitions is whether respondents were justified in cancelling the tender and going for re-tender on the ground that after technical evaluation only the petitioners remained as the single valid tenderer? Secondly, corollary to the above is the related question as to whether the concept of single tender warranting re-tender would be applicable to a situation where post technical evaluation only one tender remains in the fray as a valid tender? 4. Director of Health Services, Assam (Director) had issued E-tender notice on 26.09.2017 for providing patient diet services on contract basis for District Health Institutions under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. It was mentioned that the tenders were required to be submitted online and would be of two bid system, technical bid and price bid. Only those tenders which were found technically responsive would be considered for price bid. As per the schedule mentioned in the E-tender notice, tender publishing date was 26.09.2017, starting from 4:00 p.m. onwards. Pre-bid meeting was scheduled at 2:00 p.m. on 04.10.2017; bid submission to commence from 11:00 a.m. of 10.10.2017 upto 2:00 p.m. of 23.10.2017; finally the bids were to be opened at 3:00 p.m. on 23.10.2017. Eligibility of bidders vis-à-vis technical bid were mentioned, one of which was having a valid license under the FoodSafetyandStandardsAct,2006. It was mentioned that right to short list/reject any or all the tenders and/or to accept the whole or any part of the tenders without assigning any reasons whatsoever would be vested upon the committee to be constituted by the Director of Health Services, Assam for the purpose. 5. In all, 32 bidders participated in the tender process, including the petitioners. Technical bids were opened and evaluated by a Technical Committee on 23.10.2017. Technical Committee comprised of Director of Health Services, Assam as the Chairperson; Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam; Health Family Welfare Department; Addl. 5. In all, 32 bidders participated in the tender process, including the petitioners. Technical bids were opened and evaluated by a Technical Committee on 23.10.2017. Technical Committee comprised of Director of Health Services, Assam as the Chairperson; Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam; Health Family Welfare Department; Addl. Director of Health Services (A), Assam; Senior Medical and Health Officer in the Directorate of Health Services, Assam; Designated Officer, Food Safety (Head quarter); and Senior Finance and Accounts Officer of the Directorate of Health Services’ Assam as Members of which Senior Finance and Accounts Officer to function as Member Secretary. At the time of technical evaluation, 20 bids were found to be technically responsive including the bids of the petitioners. 6. WP(C) No. 2751/2018 pertains to Nalbari district. In so far Nalbari district is concerned, five bids were found to be technically responsive out of which bid of the petitioner was found to be L2. L1 Smti. Anjali Das withdrew her bid alongwith L3 and L4, namely, Mrinmoy Das and Pasupati Das. Bid of L5, Ranjit Kaushik was rejected as invalid as he was disqualified in view of order dated 06.12.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 344/2017. Thus petitioner became L1 in Nalbari district and remained in the fray as the sole valid tenderer. 7. In WP(C) No. 2754/2018, which pertains to Goalpara district, six bids were found to be technically responsive. Bid of the petitioner was found to be L3. L1 Smt. Anjali Das, L2 Mrinmoy Das and L4 Pasupati Das withdrew their bids. Bid of L5 Sri Ranjit Kaushik was rejected as he was held to be disqualified by this Court in the order referred to above. Another bidder namely, Montu Mahanta was also disqualified. This left only the petitioner in the fray as the sole valid tenderer. 8. In WP(C) No. 2755/2018 the concerned district is Bongaigaon. Here five bids were found to be technically responsive. Bid of petitioner was L3. L1 Smt. Anjali Das, L2 Pasupati Das and L4 Mrinmoy Das withdrew their bids. Bid of L5 Ranjit Kaushik was rejected as he was disqualified by this Court. This resulted in a situation where petitioner was left as the lone valid tenderer in so far Bongaigaon district is concerned. 9. WP(C) No. 2834/2018 pertains to Darrang district. L1 Smt. Anjali Das, L2 Pasupati Das and L4 Mrinmoy Das withdrew their bids. Bid of L5 Ranjit Kaushik was rejected as he was disqualified by this Court. This resulted in a situation where petitioner was left as the lone valid tenderer in so far Bongaigaon district is concerned. 9. WP(C) No. 2834/2018 pertains to Darrang district. In so far Darrang district is concerned, five bids were found to be technically responsive and were shortlisted for financial evaluation. Bid of petitioner was found to be L3. On the other hand, L1 Anjali Das, L2 Mrinmoy Das and L4 Pasupati Das withdrew their bids. As noticed above, bid of Sri Ranjit Kaushik, L5 was rejected as he was disqualified by this Court, leaving the petitioner as the sole valid tenderer in so far Darrang district is concerned. 10. WP(C) No. 2880/2018 pertains to Sonitpur district. In so far Sonitpur district is concerned, after technical evaluation four of the bids were found to be technically responsive. Bid of petitioner was L3. L1 Pasupati Das and L2 Mrinmoy Das withdrew their bids. On the other hand, Sri Ranjit Kaushik was L4 but as already discussed above he was disqualified by this Court. As a result, only the petitioner was left in the fray as the lone valid tenderer. 11. WP(C) No. 3091/2018 pertains to Kamrup (M) district. After technical evaluation three bids were found to be technically responsive, namely, Montu Mahanta as L1, Ranjit Kaushik as L2 and petitioner as L3. Tender of Montu Mahanta was rejected and he was disqualified as he did not submit license under FoodSafetyandStandardsAct,2006. On the other hand, L2 Ranjit Kaushik was disqualified by this Court. As a result petitioner became L1 and remained in the fray as the sole valid tenderer. 12. In WP(C) No. 3098/2018 the concerned district is Kamrup (R). Here following technical evaluation, five bidders were found to be technical responsive. Montu Mahanta was L1 and Ranjit Kaushik was L2. For the reasons mentioned above, tenders of both of them were rejected. Petitioner was L3. After declaration of L1 and L2 as disqualified, petitioner became L1 in so far Kamrup (R) district is concerned. 13. Here following technical evaluation, five bidders were found to be technical responsive. Montu Mahanta was L1 and Ranjit Kaushik was L2. For the reasons mentioned above, tenders of both of them were rejected. Petitioner was L3. After declaration of L1 and L2 as disqualified, petitioner became L1 in so far Kamrup (R) district is concerned. 13. Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department thereafter took the decision to go for re-tender in the above districts which was communicated to the Director by the departmental Secretary vide letter dated 26.04.2018 which is under impugnment in all the proceedings. 14. On behalf of the respondents, Director of Health Services has filed affidavit in all the cases. The affidavits are identically structured and therefore a reference to only one of the affidavits would suffice. Hence, affidavit filed by the Director of Health Service, Assam in WP(C) No. 3091/2018 is taken up for consideration. 15. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Director has clarified that as per the NIT, one tenderer could participate in the tender in more than one district. It is stated that pursuant to the NIT dated 26.09.2017, the technical bid evaluation committee i.e., the Technical Committee held its meeting on 23.10.2017. Summary report of the said meeting was uploaded in the website on 11.11.2017. In the technical evaluation, bids of the petitioners were found to be valid and as per the summary report uploaded on 11.11.2017, petitioners were shown as valid tenderers. 16. Financial bids were opened on 03.11.2017. It was at that stage that the order dated 06.12.2017 was passed in WA No. 334/2017 holding Sri Ranjit Kaushik as ineligible bidder was placed before the Technical Committee evaluating the price bids on 03.11.2017. After opening of the price bids, bidders Anjali Das and Pasupati Das withdrew their bids on 06.11.2017 and bidder Mrinmoy Das withdrew his bids on 08.11.2017. Following the aforesaid development, a meeting of the Technical Committee was held on 14.12.2017 and after preparing a comparative statement of financial bids for all the districts, forwarded the same to the Govt. of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department for approval/recommendation. Thereafter, Govt. of Assam vide letter dated 26.04.2018 furnished its recommendation against each district. Following the aforesaid development, a meeting of the Technical Committee was held on 14.12.2017 and after preparing a comparative statement of financial bids for all the districts, forwarded the same to the Govt. of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department for approval/recommendation. Thereafter, Govt. of Assam vide letter dated 26.04.2018 furnished its recommendation against each district. In so far the districts of Nalbari, Goalpara, Bongaigaon, Darrang, Sonitpur, Kamrup (M) and Kamrup (R) are concerned, Government directed re-tender as it was found that petitioner because the single bidder after withdrawal and disqualification of bids. Therefore the decision for rebidding was taken which it is contended is not arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. 17. Petitioners have filed reply affidavit in all the cases. 18. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 19. Before adverting to the affidavit filed by the Director, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench dated 06.12.2017 passed in WA No. 334/2017. After declaring Sri Ranjit Kaushik to be ineligible for submitting tender pursuant to the E-tender notice dated 26.09.2017, Division Bench observed that even if he was found to be L1, no work order can be issued in his favour by the authorities. In such context, Division Bench directed that except for Ranjit Kaushik, the authorities would be at liberty to the issue work orders to the other selected L1 tenderers. 20. Reverting back to the affidavit of the Director, what is noticeable is that the decision to go for re-tender was on account of the situation which unfolded post technical evaluation where two of the bidders were found technically invalid out of which one was declared invalid by the Court. Three of the bidders had withdrawn their bids. This resulted in a piquant situation where the petitioners became the lone technically responsive bidder in the fray. 21. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that there is no averment in the affidavit of the Director imputing any motive behind withdrawal of bids by the three bidders. It is not the case of the Director that the bids were withdrawn to give unfair advantage to the petitioners or that there was collusion between the bidders leading to withdrawal of bids leaving the petitioners as the sole valid tenderers in fray. It is not the case of the Director that the bids were withdrawn to give unfair advantage to the petitioners or that there was collusion between the bidders leading to withdrawal of bids leaving the petitioners as the sole valid tenderers in fray. Only reason or justification given for the decision to go for re-tender was that because of disqualification and withdrawal of bids, there remained only one valid bidder i.e. the petitioners. Taking the view that this resulted in a situation of having a single bid, it was decided to go for re-tender. 22. I am afraid, the logic behind such decision does not appear to be sound. The concept of single tender requiring re-tender would ordinarily arise when after opening of the bids, i.e., after opening of technical bids in two bid system or opening of bids in a single bid system, there is only one tenderer in the fray. In such a situation, the tendering authority would be well within its right to go for re-tender; firstly, to eliminate possibility of unfair or collusive tendering and, secondly, to ensure a better bargain for the tendering authority. On the other hand, if it is found that there are more than one tenderer who had submitted their tenders but after scrutiny or after evaluation of technical bids, tenders of some of them are found to be invalid while some others have withdrawn their bids, even if it leads to a situation where there is only one valid tenderer in the fray, such a consequential scenario cannot be treated at par with a scenario where there is only one tenderer at the threshold. The two situations stand apart and, therefore, consequences flowing therefrom would also be different. 23. In so far the present case is concerned, it is not the fault of the petitioners that bids of two of the bidders were found to be invalid. Moreover, as noticed above, there is no allegation or averment in the affidavit of the Director that there was collusion between the bidders leading to withdrawal of bids by three of them thereby giving unfair advantage to the petitioners. If this is not the case, then petitioners cannot be faulted for being left in the fray post tender evaluation as the single valid tenderers. 24. If this is not the case, then petitioners cannot be faulted for being left in the fray post tender evaluation as the single valid tenderers. 24. In such circumstances, the decision of the respondents to go for re-tender vis-à-vis the districts of Nalbari, Goalpara, Bongaigaon, Darrang, Sonitpur, Kamrup (M) and Kamrup (R) cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. 25. Consequence of the above would be that formal supply orders shall now be issued by the tendering authority i.e., by the Director of Health Services, Assam to the petitioners in so far the above districts are concerned which shall be done within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No cost.