JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. K Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M Chetia, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. KL Gupta, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. DP Borah, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent Municipal Board in awarding the contract pertaining to Repairing of Bazaar Road at Dhing Bazaar and Construction of PCC Road at Dhing Bazaar in favour of the respondent No.6 by applying a yardstick which the petitioner alleges to be unfair and unreasonable in order to favour the respondent No.6. 3. The materials on record show that a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) dated 24.01.2025 was issued by the respondent No.5 from eligible APWD contractors (Class-III and above) in respect of th nd various works coming within the ambit of 15 FC Untied Grant 2 Installment for the year 2023-24 during the year 2024-25. 4. The present writ petition relates to two works which are at Sl.No.5 and 6 in the said NIT i.e. Repairing of Bazaar Road at Dhing Bazaar and Construction of PCC Road at Dhing Bazaar. The NIT further stipulated various tender conditions, but relevant for the purpose of the instant case is Clause 4 of the said NIT which is reproduced hereinunder: “4. Any rate quoted recklessly by the bidder worth less than 10% of the package will be rejected/disqualified.” 5. The petitioner along with the various other bidders participated in respect to the two works as aforementioned. The materials on record as well as from the submission of Mr. KL Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 show that both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 quoted the same rate. In respect to the work pertaining to Repairing of Bazaar Road at Dhing Bazaar the quoted rate of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 was Rs.17,19,900/- and in respect to the work pertaining to Construction of PCC Road at Dhing Bazaar the rate quoted by both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 was Rs.16,81,200/-. 6. In respect to the work pertaining to Repairing of Bazaar Road at Dhing Bazaar the quoted rate of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 was Rs.17,19,900/- and in respect to the work pertaining to Construction of PCC Road at Dhing Bazaar the rate quoted by both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 was Rs.16,81,200/-. 6. This Court finds it very pertinent to observe that the NIT dated 24.01.2025 did not contain any clause as to how the tendering authority would decide whom to grant the tender in the circumstance when there is more than one L1 bidder. It is further taken note of that a meeting was called on 14.02.2025 of the Tender Evaluation Committee wherein amongst the various members, the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board i.e. the respondent No.4 was present. In the agenda of the said meeting, one of the items which was fixed to be discussed was what course of action was required to be taken when more than one bidder stand as L1 as per the comparative statement of the financial bids. The dispute in the present case arises therefrom, inasmuch as, on 14.02.2025, a proposal was submitted in the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee as to how to evaluate the eligible bidders in case of multiple L1 bidders. The proposal which was submitted is reproduced hereinunder: “ Proposed marking Criteria for Evaluation of Eligible Bidder in Cases with Multiple L1 Bidders: Class (40%) By Type Marks Work Order (40%) By Rank Marks Financial Turnover (20%) By Rank Marks I(A/B/C) 40 1st 40 1st 20 II 35 2nd 35 2nd 18 III 30 3 rd 30 3 rd 16 Total Weight: 100” 7. It further appears that on 17.02.2025, 5 out of 8 members of the Tender Evaluation Committee proposed a different yardstick to be applied. The proposal which was submitted by 5 of the members were that instead of having 40% marks on the work order and 20% marks on the financial turnover, it should be the reverse i.e. 40% marks on account of financial turnover and 20% marks on account of the work order. The resultant effect of the proposal submitted on 17.02.2025 by the majority was that the respondent No.6 scored more marks than the petitioner in both the bids in question and as such, the contracts were awarded in favour of the respondent No.6. The resultant effect of the proposal submitted on 17.02.2025 by the majority was that the respondent No.6 scored more marks than the petitioner in both the bids in question and as such, the contracts were awarded in favour of the respondent No.6. The petitioner being aggrieved has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. The allegations made in the writ petition are that the respondent authorities have changed the yardstick after it was proposed on 14.02.2025 in order to accommodate the respondent No.6 who was the son-in-law of the respondent No.4. The second ground so taken is that the change which was proposed on 17.02.2025 to the proposal made on 14.02.2025 was changing the goalpost at a later stage after having realised that if the yardstick proposed on 14.02.2025 was accepted the contracts have to be awarded in favour of the petitioner and such an action on the part of the respondents were not fair or transparent and results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that allegation of bias were leveled on the chairman of the respondent Board. However, the Chairman of the respondent Board was not made a party by name. 9. It is further seen from the materials on record that after the filing of the writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 28.03.2025, while issuing notice directed that the Award List in respect to Serial Nos.5 & 6 i.e. Repairing of Bazaar Road at Dhing Bazaar and Construction of PCC Road at Dhing Bazaar which has been awarded to the private respondent No.6 shall remain suspended till the next returnable date. The interim order in the meantime has been extended from time to time. 10. The records further reveal that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at paragraph 5, it was stated that in view of there being more than one L1 bidder, a meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee was held on 14.02.2025 by the Dhing Municipal Board wherein various issues were discussed including the issues of steps to be taken when there were more than one bidder emerges as L1 as per the comparative statement of the financial bids. It was stated that a proposal was submitted that the scope of the work to be given weightage at 40% and financial turnover at 20%. However, some of the members of the Tender Evaluation Committee suggested that the scope of financial turnover may be taken as 40% and work order be given weightage of 20% subject to consent of majority of the persons of the Tender Evaluation Committee. It was further mentioned that the Technical Evaluation Committee comprising of members from different fields dealt as per the suggestions so made by the majority and the respondent No.6 was found more suitable and as such the same was awarded to the respondent No.6 and the letter of acceptance was issued to the respondent No.6 vide letter dated 04.03.2025. 11. The deponent of the said affidavit was the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board, wherein he had stated in paragraph 7 that he was not a part of the final decision making authority and the methodology adopted by the Technical Evaluation Committee was not reversed by the deponent. It was further stated that the change of methodology was proposed by the Technical Evaluation Committee which comprised of experts from different fields and the respondent No.4 only endorsed it without having any say in it. It was further stated that the change of methodology was proposed by the majority members of the Technical Evaluation Committee. 12. Before moving forward, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that the enclosures enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition were not at all legible, more particularly, Annexure-1 to the said affidavit-in- opposition. Irrespective of the said document being not legible, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 had certified the same to be true copy. This Court further finds it pertinent to observe that when the said document was not at all legible, the Registry also should not have accepted the same. 13. The records further reveal that the petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 wherein the petitioner had provided the details as regards the implication and difference when the yardstick was proposed on 14.02.2025 vis-à-vis the yardstick on 17.02.2025 upon being applied. 14. 13. The records further reveal that the petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 wherein the petitioner had provided the details as regards the implication and difference when the yardstick was proposed on 14.02.2025 vis-à-vis the yardstick on 17.02.2025 upon being applied. 14. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent No.6 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition which are similarly drawn in the lines of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. This Court is not reiterating the contents of the said affidavit-in-opposition for the sake of brevity. Reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the petitioner. 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 16. Mr. K Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the presence of the respondent No.4 who was the father-in-law of the respondent No.6 in the meeting and the role so played have resulted in the change in the yardstick on 17.02.2025. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak & Ors. etc Vs. Union Of India & Ors (1969) 2 SCC 262 , the learned counsel submitted that the presence of the respondent No.4 in the selection process in the Technical Evaluation Committee had rendered the decision made in favour of the respondent No.6 violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. 17. Per contra, Mr. KL Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, 4, and 5 submitted that pursuant to the agenda for calling for the meeting of the Technical Evaluation Committee, an evaluation criteria was proposed on 14.02.2025. The said evaluation criteria however was not accepted and another proposal was submitted on 17.02.2025 by 5 out of 8 members wherein they suggested that 40% marks to be granted towards financial turnover and 20% marks should be given in respect to the value of the work orders. The learned counsel further submitted that what has been done was a majority decision comprising of various members from various fields and the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board was no where involved in the said decision, inasmuch as, the said decision was taken on the basis of a majority opinion. The learned counsel further submitted that what has been done was a majority decision comprising of various members from various fields and the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board was no where involved in the said decision, inasmuch as, the said decision was taken on the basis of a majority opinion. He, therefore, submitted that the question of bias which is a pivotal contention made by the petitioner does not arise. 18. Mr. DP Borah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 adopted the same arguments which was made by Mr. KL Gupta and for the sake of repetition the same are not repeated. Analysis and Determination: 19. From the details as mentioned hereinabove, it would be clear that the dispute which had arisen in the present case is on account of the evaluation criteria so adopted. There is no denial of the fact that on 14.02.2025, there was a proposal being submitted, the details of which have been quoted hereinabove. Subsequent thereto, on 17.02.2025, 5 out of 8 members of the Technical Evaluation Committee proposed that instead of 40% marks being given in respect to work orders, 20% marks should be given and instead of 20% marks given in the financial turnover, 40% marks should be given. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the 5(five) members who had proposed did not include the respondent No.4, who was the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board against whom the allegations have been made. Further to that, the proposal so made on 17.02.2025 was accepted by a majority decision. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of that the said proposal was made on 17.02.2025 by various persons in different fields i.e. the Executive Engineer (PHE) Dhing Division; the Deputy Director Town and Country Planning, Nagaon; The Executive Engineer Municipal Administration Department, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Nagaon; Assistant Executive Engineer PWD, Dhing Territorial Road Division and Assistant Executive Engineer PWD, Rupohihat Samuguri Building Sub-Division. There is also nothing on record to show that the proposal so submitted on 14.02.2025 was accepted. Rather the materials on record show that the proposal submitted on 17.02.2025 had the endorsement of five of the eight members of the Technical Evaluation Committee. 20. There is also nothing on record to show that the proposal so submitted on 14.02.2025 was accepted. Rather the materials on record show that the proposal submitted on 17.02.2025 had the endorsement of five of the eight members of the Technical Evaluation Committee. 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though submitted that the said decision to change the criteria have been made at the instance of the respondent No.4. It is very pertinent to observe that the proposal submitted on 14.02.2025 does not show that the same was accepted. As stated above on 17.02.2025, 5(five) of the Technical Evaluation Committee members had proposed the change in the criteria. In the opinion of this Court, as there was no decision taken by the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board solely, but it was a decision taken by the majority, the said decision under no circumstances can be said to be in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 21. Apart from that this Court observes that the respondent authorities who are the Tendering Authority have certain latitude to deal with situations not contemplated while issuing tender notices. No doubt the respondent authorities ought to have included a provision in the NIT to deal with a situation when there are more than one L1 bidder. However, the same having not been done, the majority having decided to adopt a criteria to deal with the situation does not make the decision to adopt the criteria at a later stage unreasonable or unfair requiring this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, it is also noticed that the petitioner had no issue if the criteria proposed on 14.02.2025 was adopted. 22. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe that the gamut of the allegations relates to personal bias against one Sri Susanta Kumar Nath, who was the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board. However, the said person had not been arrayed as party to the instant proceedings. 22. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe that the gamut of the allegations relates to personal bias against one Sri Susanta Kumar Nath, who was the Chairman of the Dhing Municipal Board. However, the said person had not been arrayed as party to the instant proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that when allegations of personal bias as well as mala fide on facts are made, the person against whom such allegations are made has to be arrayed as party to the proceedings to sustain the allegations of personal bias or mala fide on facts, inasmuch as, no office or post can be alleged to have personal bias or malicious intent. On this ground also, the instant writ petition should fail. 23. Considering the above, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for exercising the powers of judicial review, for which, writ petition stands dismissed. 24. Before parting with the record, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5 had certified a document to be true, which is not legible. Considering the above, this Court imposes a costs of Rs.10,000/- upon Mr. KL Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to be deposited before the Registry of this Court within 7(seven) days from today. This cost is imposed as a deterrent so that in future such occurrence is not repeated. The costs so directed to be deposited before the Registry of this Court shall be then disbursed to the District Legal Services Authority, Kamrup(M). It is observed that if the amount of Rs.10000/- is not deposited within the period as stipulated above, the matter be again placed before this Court. 25. This Court also directs the Registry to make necessary enquiries as to the Official responsible and see to it that in future illegible documents are not permitted to be filed along with the pleadings. 26. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.