Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 81 (MAN)

Lunsat Kipgen v. State of Manipur

2021-11-22

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners; Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate for the private respondent in WP(C) No.355 of 2019; Mr. S. Lokendro, learned Advocate for the private respondent in W.P.(C) No.356 of 2019 and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA for the State respondents. [2] Since the facts and circumstances of the above two writ petitions are identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The only difference is that in WP(C) No.355 of 2019, the work order dated 28-02-2019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 661, has been challenged, while the work order dated 19-02-2019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 6323, has been challenged in WP(C) No.356 of 2019. WP(C) No.355 of 2019: [3.1] Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner who belongs to ST community in Manipur, is a Special Class Contractor. [3.2] The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as “the PMGSY”) was launched by the Government of India on 25-12- 2000 with a view to promote access to economic and social services thereby increasing agricultural incomes and productive employment opportunities by providing all weather roads to unconnected habitations. The PMGSY is a 100% centrally sponsored scheme. The work under the PMGSY in the State of Manipur employs a separate rate namely the Schedule of Rate (SR), Manipur. The rate so fixed has been adopted in preparing the estimate for any work or DPR for various projects under the PMGSY. The standard quantum of labour materials and machineries considered at the time of deriving the rates of specific items, cannot be varied by any bidder at the time of assessing this rates to offer in a tender. [3.3] The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department (RED)/ Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA), Imphal issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as “the NIT”) dated 19-07-2018 for construction of 142 roads and 53 bridges under the PMGSY and the petitioner being eligible for it, submitted his bids for participation in the tender process for various packages including the packages-No.MN0 661, Saikul- Ichaigoyang to Hengjang and No.MN0 6323, NH-39 to Khochangbung. [3.4] The technical bids in respect of the package No. MN0 661, Saikul- Ichaigoyang to Hengjang were opened on 12-11-2018 wherein the petitioner and the private respondent were found to be the responsive bidders by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Thereafter, the financial bids were also opened and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder (L1) as he quoted Rs.116002776.18/-. [3.5] The Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India issued a circular dated 20-01-2010 with regard to the post-tender negotiations clarifying that there should normally be no post-tender negotiations. If such negotiations are warranted under the exceptional circumstances, then it can be done with the lowest bidder only, if the tender pertains to the award of work/ supply orders etc. for which the Government or the Government Company has to make the payment. [3.6] Even though the technical bid evaluation and financial bid evaluation had already been done, the tender process in respect of the aforesaid package was not finalised by awarding the work order/ letter of intent to the petitioner which compelled him to submit a representation dated 03-12-2018 to the Chief Engineer (RED) requesting him to issue work order in his favour so as to enable him to start the execution of the work. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.135 of 2019 praying for awarding contract upon him, which was disposed of on 20-02-2019 directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation submitted by him by issuing a speaking order and that too, before the letter of intent was issued by the respondents. As the State respondents failed to consider and dispose of his representation as directed by this Court, the petitioner inspected the work sites and found that in respect of package No.MN0 661, Saikul- ichaigoyang to Hengjang, the construction work had already been started by the private respondent by using heavy vehicles and labourers. Being aggrieved by such action of the State respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation to the State respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 03-04-2019 requesting them to stop the ongoing construction work and award the contract in his favour. Being aggrieved by such action of the State respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation to the State respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 03-04-2019 requesting them to stop the ongoing construction work and award the contract in his favour. Despite the representation being submitted by the petitioner, the construction work did continue and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.333 of 2019 and on 26-04-2019 when it was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the work order dated 28-02-2019 alleged to have been issued in favour of the private respondent. [3.7] Being aggrieved by the said work order dated 28-02-2019, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner questioning its validity and correctness on the inter-alia grounds that this Court, while disposing of WP(C) No.135 of 2019, had directed the State respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 03-12-2018 submitted by the petitioner which they had failed to do so. The action of the State respondents by issuing the work order dated 28-02-2019 was not sustainable in the eyes of law, as it was contrary to the order passed by this Court. In view of the terms and conditions as stipulated in Clause 27.1 of the Standard Bidding Document for the PMGSY Phase-II (Batch- II, 2017-18) prepared by the RED, Government of Manipur, the work order for the aforesaid package should have been given to the petitioner as he is the lowest bidder. If the State respondents had accepted the bid of the private respondent who is the 2nd lowest bidder, there must be a justifiable reason for accepting it. No such reason had been assigned by the State respondents for accepting the bid of the private respondent. [4] The instant writ petition was contested by the private respondent by way of an affidavit stating that he would rely upon the affidavit-In-opposition filed by the State respondents in WP(C) No.356 of 2019 which had been adopted in the present case and the averments made in the application being MC(WP(C) No.130 of 2021 filed by him. [4] The instant writ petition was contested by the private respondent by way of an affidavit stating that he would rely upon the affidavit-In-opposition filed by the State respondents in WP(C) No.356 of 2019 which had been adopted in the present case and the averments made in the application being MC(WP(C) No.130 of 2021 filed by him. In his affidavit, an objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner participated in the etender process and along with his bids, the petitioner filed earnest money deposit slip along with an affidavit stating that his bid would be valid for 90 days. Although the petitioner’s bid validity had expired, he did not extend the validity of his bids which was concealed before this Court and as he did not come before this Court with clean hands, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 08-08-2019 passed in WP(C) No.717 of 2017 has held that when the period of bid’s validity is 90 days and the same has already expired, the bidder has no right to challenge the work order. The State respondents strictly followed the existing guidelines for the e-tender and award of contract under the PMGSY. The contract work was awarded to him, as he was considered to be substantially responsive bidder. Since the circular of the Central Vigilance Commission is not applicable with the e-Tender under the PMGSY, the petitioner cannot extract any enforceable right therefrom. The competent authority constituted a Tender Bid Evaluation Committee which is an expert body having expertise knowledge in the field, found that the rate quoted by him was found to be most substantially responsive. Hence, the work order dated 28-02-2019 was issued in his favour. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between him and the State respondents, on the basis of which the execution of the work had started in the first week of March, 2019. Hence, the work order dated 28-02-2019 was issued in his favour. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between him and the State respondents, on the basis of which the execution of the work had started in the first week of March, 2019. After the work order being issued, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.135 of 2019 which was disposed directing the State respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 03-12-2018 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law by issuing a speaking order and In compliance with the order dated 20-02-2019, the petitioner’s representation was minutely examined and considered by the Tender Committee which found it to be devoid of merit. Hence, the said representation was rejected by issuing a reasoned and speaking order dated 04-03-2019 which was not challenged by the petitioner. The work order dated 28-02-2019 had already been given effect to before the order being passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No.355 of 2019. Since the present petition had become infructuous, it deserved to be dismissed. This Court did not stay or suspend the letter of acceptance and work order or direct the private respondent to stop the execution of the work under package No.MNO 0661. Thus, the order dated 20-02-2019 passed in WP(C) No.135 of 2019 did not affect the letter of acceptance and work order dated 28-02-2019. The petitioner failed to approach the Dispute Redressal System under the relevant provisions of the SBD and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. WP(C) No.356 of 2019: [5.1] Facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition are identical with that of the WP(C) No.355 of 2019 and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. [5.2] The petitioner submitted his bids in respect of the package No.MNO 6323, NH-39 to Khochangbung and the technical bids thereof were opened on 22-11-2018 wherein the present petitioner was found to be the responsive bidder by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Thereafter, the financial bids were also opened and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder (L1) as he quoted Rs.35652625.03/-. Thereafter, the financial bids were also opened and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder (L1) as he quoted Rs.35652625.03/-. [5.3] Even though the petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder, he was not awarded the work order by finalising the tender process which compelled the petitioner to submit a representation dated 03-12-2018 to the Chief Engineer (RED) requesting him to issue work order in his favour but to no effect. In WP(C) No.135 of 2019 filed by him, this Court, while disposing it of on 20-02-2019, directed the respondents therein to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner by issuing a speaking order and that too, before the letter of intent was issued by the respondents. As the State respondents failed to consider and dispose of his representation as directed by this Court, the petitioner inspected the work sites and found that the construction work had already been started by the private respondent by using heavy vehicles and labourers. Being aggrieved by such action of the State respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 & 2 on 03-04-2019 requesting them to stop the ongoing construction work and award the contract in his favour. Despite the representation being submitted by the petitioner, the construction work did continue and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.312 of 2019 and on 26- 04-2019 when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the work order dated 19-02- 2019 alleged to have been issued in favour of the private respondent. [5.4] Being aggrieved by the said work order dated 19-02-2019, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner questioning its validity and correctness on the grounds which are similar to that of the grounds taken in WP(C) No.355 of 2019. [6.1] The State respondents in their affidavit, raised an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the petitioner submitted his bidding documents along with earnest money deposit slip dated 11-09-2018 supported by an affidavit to the effect that the bid would remain valid for 90 days. After the validity having expired, the petitioner did not extend it. The petitioner did not disclose this fact and since the petitioner did not come before this Court with clean hands, he had no right to challenge the work order. After the validity having expired, the petitioner did not extend it. The petitioner did not disclose this fact and since the petitioner did not come before this Court with clean hands, he had no right to challenge the work order. As the State Government followed the guidelines, the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission is not applicable to e-tender process under PMGSY. Two committees-one, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and two, the Financial Bid Evaluation Committee, were constituted vide order dated 24-04-2018. The Tender Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 15- 10-2018, evaluated the bids and unanimously decided to fix workable evaluated percentage based on the market rate. The rate quoted by the L2 was found to be most substantially responsive and accordingly, the letter of acceptance was awarded to the private respondent. In terms of the order dated 20-02-2019 passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioner was examined and considered by the Committee which found it to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, rejected it vide order dated 04-03-2019. The letter of acceptance dated 16-02-2019 and work order dated 19-02-2019 had already been issued before the order dated 20-02-2019 being passed by this Court and there was no direction from this Court restraining the execution of work. Thus, the writ petition had become infructuous. In terms of the judgment and order dated 08-08- 2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.717 of 2017 : 2019 Legal Eagle (Manipur) 309, S. Thanmi v. State of Manipur & ors, a bidder had no right to question the work order after the validity period had expired. [6.2] Denying the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondent, the petitioner in his rejoinder stated that in terms of the NIT dated 19-07-2018, his bid for the work would remain valid for acceptance for a period of not less than 90 days after the last date of submission. The last date for receipt of bids being 25-08-2018, the period of 90 days would expire on 26-11-2018. The technical bids were opened on 22-11-2018, while the financial bids were opened on 26-11-2018. The last date for receipt of bids being 25-08-2018, the period of 90 days would expire on 26-11-2018. The technical bids were opened on 22-11-2018, while the financial bids were opened on 26-11-2018. It is the State respondents which opened the financial bids only on 26-11- 2018 after the expiry of the period, for which the petitioner could not be held responsible and they could not take the plea that the petitioner had no right to question the work order after doing a summersault. It is nowhere mentioned in the order dated 04-03-2019 by which his representation was disposed of that his bids had been rejected except stating that his bid was excessively low, for which no reason was given to the effect that the petitioner would be unable to execute the work. From the perusal of the order dated 04-03-2019, it is crystal clear that before the technical bids being opened, the Technical Committee had already taken a decision on 15-10-2018 for rejecting the bid of the petitioner and the tender process was conducted only for namesake. Even the order dated 04-03-2019 was not communicated to the petitioner who came to know about it only when a copy thereof was filed along with the affidavit. In view of the settled law, the order dated 04-03-2019 was not sustainable at all. When the technical bids were opened, the petitioners was found to be one of the responsive bidders and when the financial bids were opened, he was found to be the lowest bidder. Therefore, as per Clause 27.1 of the Standard Bidding Documents, the work order ought to have been given to him. The work order dated 19-02-2019 was not uploaded in the website nor was it made known to the public and it was produced before this Court through their counsel. Despite the rate quoted by the petitioner being within the range of bids and on several occasions, the State respondents had awarded contract works under the PMGSY to various bidders/ contractors who offered their bids below - 12.49%. [7] The private respondent filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that he was found to be substantially responsive bidder and accordingly, a letter of acceptance was issued on 16-02-2018 and thereafter, the work order was issued on 19-02-2018 in his favour. After all formalities being completed, he started the execution of work, for which two running bills had been submitted by him. [7] The private respondent filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that he was found to be substantially responsive bidder and accordingly, a letter of acceptance was issued on 16-02-2018 and thereafter, the work order was issued on 19-02-2018 in his favour. After all formalities being completed, he started the execution of work, for which two running bills had been submitted by him. The further execution of work had stopped after the interim order dated 17-05-2019 being passed by this Court in WP(C) No.355 of 2019. Rest of the affidavit is almost similar to that of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. [8] Before coming to the facts of the present cases, this Court deems it appropriate to re-visit the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters relating to award of contract. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : 1994 Legal Eagle (SC) 653 wherein two main issues-one, relating to the scope of judicial review and two, relating to selection being vitiated by arbitrariness, which are relevant for the cases also, were considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In matters relating to contracts wherein one of the parties is the public authority, the question to be asked is, have the guidelines been laid down, if so laid down, have they been observed? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, summarised the principles which are the broad grounds subject to addition of further grounds in course of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “69. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated, the following are the requisites of a valid tender: 1. It must be unconditional. 2. Must be made at the proper place. 3. Must conform to the terms of obligation. 4. Must be made at the proper time. 5. Must be made in the proper form. 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection. 8. Tender must be made to the proper person. 9. It must be of full amount. 70. 4. Must be made at the proper time. 5. Must be made in the proper form. 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection. 8. Tender must be made to the proper person. 9. It must be of full amount. 70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose, the exercise of that power will be struck down. 71. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. 88. We may now look at some of the pronouncements of this Court including the authorities cited by Mr Ashoke Sen. Fasih Chaudhary v. Director General, Doordarshan was a case in which the Court was concerned with the award of a contract for show of sponsored TV serial. At p. 92 in paragraphs 5 and 6 it was held thus: “It is well settled that there should be fair play in action in a situation like the present one, as was observed by this Court in Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana. It is also well settled that the authorities like Doordarshan should act fairly and their action should be legitimate and fair and transaction should be without any aversion, malice or affection. v. State of Haryana. It is also well settled that the authorities like Doordarshan should act fairly and their action should be legitimate and fair and transaction should be without any aversion, malice or affection. Nothing should be done which gives the impression of favouritism or nepotism. See the observations of this Court in Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn. While, as mentioned hereinbefore, fair play in action in matters like the present one is an essential requirement, similarly, however, “free play in the joints? is also a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere as the present one. Judged from that standpoint of view, though all the proposals might not have been considered strictly in accordance with order of precedence, it appears that these were considered fairly, reasonably, objectively and without any malice or ill-will.” 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure”. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure”. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 : 2000 Legal Eagle (SC) 213 wherein it has been held that the law relating to award of a contract has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the relevant para 7 of which is as under: “7.The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene.” In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 : 2006 Legal Eagle (SC) 1145, the decision in Tata Cellular case (supra) was referred to and relied upon with the following observations: “This Court also noted that there are inherent limitations in the exercise of power of judicial review of contractual powers. This Court also observed that the duty to act fairly will vary in extent, depending upon the nature of cases, to which the said principle is sought to be applied. This Court held that the State has the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided it tries to get the best person or the best quotation, and the power to choose is not exercised for any collateral purpose or in infringement of Article 14.” In Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 760 : 2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 917, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the submission of tender is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept and the bidders in the tender cannot insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or the lowest. It has further been held that the only enforceable right that a bidder has, is to examine by the court whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of the public interest. It has further been held that the only enforceable right that a bidder has, is to examine by the court whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of the public interest. In Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust & anr., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 233 : 2014 Legal Eagle (SC) 319, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Case (supra), has been followed with the observation that a lucid enunciation on the scope of judicial review of administrative action, that too in tender matters can be found therein. [9] From the aforesaid decisions, it is seen that the law, as regards the matters relating to award of contracts involving a public authority, is no longer res integra. There is no need of multiplying the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard and suffice it to say that the Court’s power of judicial review of administrative action is limited to the extent indicated in the decisions mentioned hereinabove. But an exception has been carved out that though a decision relating to a matter of contract is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision- making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. In other words, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. Article 14 of the Constitution being anathema to any malafide, unreasonable and arbitrary action of the Government or its instrumentalists, strikes at their roots. [10.1] From the perusal of the pleadings, it is seen that the case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that despite he being found to be the lowest bidder, he was not given the letter of acceptance or the letter of intent so as to enable him to execute the work. In other words, the tender process was not finalised with a reasonable time, because of which he was compelled to submit a representation dated 03-12-2018 which was not considered at all. In other words, the tender process was not finalised with a reasonable time, because of which he was compelled to submit a representation dated 03-12-2018 which was not considered at all. He approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.135 of 2019 wherein this Court passed an order dated 20-02- 2019 directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation by issuing a speaking order and that too, before the letter of intent was issued by the respondents. As the State respondents failed to comply with order, the petitioner inspected the work sites and found that the private respondents had started the execution of the works. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03-04-2019 requesting the State respondent to stop the ongoing construction works and award the contract in his favour. Despite the representation being submitted by the petitioner, the construction work did continue and accordingly, it, the petitioner filed two writ petitions being WP(C) No.312 of 2019 and WP(C) No.333 of 2019 and on 26-04-2019 when the said writ petitions were taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate produced copies of the work orders dated 19-02-2019 and 28-02-2019, alleged to have been issued in favour of the private respondents, which are being challenged in these writ petitions. [10.2] The stand of the State respondents taken in their affidavit filed in WP(C) No.356 of 2019 as well as that of the private respondents is that the Tender Committee had already taken a decision on 15-10-2018 whereby the private respondents who were the 2nd bidders, were found to be most responsive; that the petitioner had failed to extend the validity period of his bids and that before the orders being passed by this Court, the State respondents had issued the letter of acceptance and the work orders. The petitioner in his rejoinder denied this stand stating that the decision taken on 15-10-2018 by the State respondents before the technical bids were opened on 12-11-2018 and 22-11-2018 was bad in law. The petitioner was not given the work orders when he was entitled to be considered for grant of work order in terms of Clause 27 of the Bidding Documents. Although the validity period of his bids was 90 days from the last date of submission of bids, the technical bids were opened at the last moment and the petitioner was not informed about the requirement of their extension. Although the validity period of his bids was 90 days from the last date of submission of bids, the technical bids were opened at the last moment and the petitioner was not informed about the requirement of their extension. The work orders might have been issued only after the order dated 20-02-2019 being passed by this Court. [10.3] In a tender, the bid submitted by a bidder, is nothing but an offer which may or may not be accepted by the authority depending upon the terms and conditions as contained in the bidding documents. The only safeguard available with the bidder is that the authority being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably. In other words, the authority ought to follow strictly the procedure prescribed in the NIT and the bidding documents. In Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 : 2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 917, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the submission of tender is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept and the bidders in the tender cannot insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or the lowest. It has further been held that the only enforceable right that a bidder has, is to examine by the Court whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. [10.4] In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the NIT dated 19- 07-2018 was issued by the Chief Engineer, RED, Government of Manipur inviting bids from amongst the eligible contractors in respect of the construction of 142 roads and 53 bridges including the package No.MNO 661 and MN0 6323. The last date of receipt of bids was 25-08- 2018 and the technical bids were to be opened on 27-08-2018. The date on which the financial bids would be opened, is nowhere mentioned in the NIT. But according to the petitioner, the technical bids were opened on 12-11-2018 and 22-02-2018 in respect of these two packages and he being found to be qualified for the financial bids and when the financial bids were probably opened on 26-11-2018, he was found to be the lowest bidder. But according to the petitioner, the technical bids were opened on 12-11-2018 and 22-02-2018 in respect of these two packages and he being found to be qualified for the financial bids and when the financial bids were probably opened on 26-11-2018, he was found to be the lowest bidder. No counter affidavit has been filed in WP(C) No.355 of 2019 on behalf of the State respondents denying the above averment made by the petitioner and in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the said averment shall be deemed to have been admitted by them. In the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents, there is no specific denial of the aforesaid averment made by the petitioner. [10.5] In view of the fact that the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, his contention appears to be correct to the extent that he should have been given the work orders in terms of Clause 27.1 of the Standard Bidding Document for the PMGSY Phase-II (Batch-II, 2017-18) prepared by the RED, Government of Manipur which had miserably failed to do that. Even if the State Government was not prepared to accept the petitioner’s bids, it could have rejected them and informed the petitioner accordingly, about it with reasons thereof. The State Government failed to do that as well which compelled the petitioner to submit representations dated 03-12-2018. Since the State Government failed to dispose of the representations, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of WP(C) No.135 of 2019, which passed an order dated 20-02-2019 directing the State Government to dispose of the representations before the work orders were issued. On 20-02-2019 when the WP(C) No.135 of 2019 was listed for consideration, this Court was not informed that the petitioner’s bids had already been rejected and accordingly, while directing the respondents to dispose of the representations, it was also directed that the needful be done before the work order were issued. Despite the order dated 20-02-2019 being passed by this Court, the petitioner’s representations were not considered for disposal and only when the WP(C) No.312 of 2019 and WP(C) No.333 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, were listed, copies of the work orders dated 19-02-2019 and 28-02-2019 were produced before this Court. Despite the order dated 20-02-2019 being passed by this Court, the petitioner’s representations were not considered for disposal and only when the WP(C) No.312 of 2019 and WP(C) No.333 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, were listed, copies of the work orders dated 19-02-2019 and 28-02-2019 were produced before this Court. [10.6] From the aforesaid facts, the processes of tender appear to have not been conducted in a transparent manner and they further appear to have been done in such a way so as to favour the private respondents. On top of that, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents, it has been stated that on 15-10-2018 itself, the Tender Committee had chosen the bids of the private respondents for acceptance. It may be noted that the NIT was issued on 19-07-2018 and although the technical bids were to be opened on 27-08-2018, they were opened only on 12-11- 2018 and 22-11-2018 for no fault of the petitioner. As per the NIT, the bidders are required to make their bids remain valid for acceptance for a period not less than 90 days after the last date for submission and the idea behind it, appears to be that the process of tender could be completed within 90 days for the reason that the completion of the execution of the work was time bound. The petitioner in his affidavit and in terms of the NIT, declared that the bids would be valid for 90 days. Since the process of tender was not completed in 90 days, his bids had expired. But it is the State respondents which did not complete the tender process in time and they could not take advantage of their lapses. If the completion of the tender process was not possible within a reasonable time as contemplated in the NIT, the State respondents should have informed the petitioner to extend the validity period of his bids. After the petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder, the State respondents kept quite for some time. The petitioner was not given the work order nor had his bids been rejected with reasons thereof and despite representation being submitted by him, the petitioner was not informed about the progress of the tender process. After the petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder, the State respondents kept quite for some time. The petitioner was not given the work order nor had his bids been rejected with reasons thereof and despite representation being submitted by him, the petitioner was not informed about the progress of the tender process. On 20-02-2019 when the WP(C) No.135 of 2019 came up for this Court for consideration, the State respondents did not inform this Court that the petitioner’s bids had been rejected by them. Therefore, this Court directed the State respondents to dispose of the representation before the work order was issued. If the work order had already been issued, there was no need for this Court to pass this order. Only on 26-04-2019 when WP(C) No.312 of 2019 and WP(C) No.333 of 2019 were listed before this Court, the State respondents produced copies of the work orders dated 19-02-0219 and 28-02-2019, although they failed to produce them before this Court on 20-02-2019. These circumstances make it very clear that the State respondents did suppress the materials facts from this Court. Under these circumstances, it can be safely inferred and held that the action of the respondents was unfair and unreasonable. It may further be noted that the State Government ought to act always fairly and reasonably. [11] There are other points which the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have emphasised and one of them being the contention of the State respondents that the petitioner’s bid was rejected on the ground that its validity period had expired and that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. Their contention appears to be correct in law but on facts, it is not so in the present case. It may be noted that as per the NIT, the bidders are required to make their bids remain valid for a period of not less than 90 days and the idea behind it, is that the tender process could be completed within that period. Admittedly, all the bidders appear to have fulfilled this condition but the State respondents failed to complete the tender process within 90 days. If the State respondents were not in a position to complete the tender process within 90 days, they ought to have informed the bidders to extend the validity period of their bids. Admittedly, all the bidders appear to have fulfilled this condition but the State respondents failed to complete the tender process within 90 days. If the State respondents were not in a position to complete the tender process within 90 days, they ought to have informed the bidders to extend the validity period of their bids. As the State respondents failed to do that, they could not take the advantage of their own lapses and contend that since the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present writ petition, as the validity of his bid had expired. The other point is that the petitioner failed to approach the competent authority as provided in Clause 24 of Standard Bidding Documents for settlement of dispute. In this regard, it may further be noted that since the petitioner was not informed about his bid being rejected, there was no occasion for him to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievances. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the State respondents appear to have not conducted the tender process in a fair and transparent manner to the detriment of public interest resulting loss in the public exchequer. [12] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petitions are allowed and consequently, the work orders dated 28-02-02019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 661 and dated 19-02- 2019 issued in respect of package No.MN0 6323 are quashed and aside with the direction that appropriate action shall be taken by the State respondents to ensure that the work orders in respect of the aforesaid packages are issued in favour of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.