SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/11) and 03.01.2022 (Annexure P/13) whereby the bids of the private respondents have been allowed during technical evaluation.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that a tender was floated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 inviting the bids for transportation work. The petitioner also submitted his tender pursuant to the NIT for Singrauli. The petitioner preferred an objection against the bid preferred by the private respondent No.3. The respondents overlooked the objection preferred by the petitioner and cleared the technical bid and the same has been awarded to the private respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the partners of respondent No.3 firm namely Arun Chhaochharia had expired in the year 2020 and old partnership deed has been presented. Till date no amendment has been carried out in the registration/deed as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Though Shri Sidhant Chhaochharia has been appointed. The GST registration has been submitted by the private respondent also bears the name of deceased partner Shri Arun Chhaocharia and no amendment has been carried out in the GST Registration. Turnover Certificate has also not been presented in proper format for LRT Bardana as contained in Schedule 10 of the Tender Document. The private respondent has entered into contract with third parties by executing an agreement, which bears the name of Shri Arpit Agrawal. The authorization letter of Shri Siddhant Chhaochharia does not bears signatures of all the partners.

5. Earlier, the petitioner had knocked the doors of this Court challenging the technical bid awarded to the private respondent by filing W.P.No.25119/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2021 directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the objection presented by the petitioner and communicate the same. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 have rejected the objection preferred by the petitioner stating that the same has already been informed the petitioner orally as well as in writing. Whereas it is submitted that the respondents have not communicated in writing as well as orally to the petitioner the outcome of objection filed by him without taking decisions on the objection raised by the petitioner. The respondents straightaway issued the work order to the private respondent vide order dated 03.01.2022. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the four objections raised by the petitioner no findings have been given. Four objections raised vide letter dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P/6). As per clause 15.1, if objection of technical bid is rejected, reasons have to be spelled out. The aforesaid procedure has not been followed. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 16.12.2021 and 03.01.2022 deserve to be set aside and direction to the respondents be issued to re consider the technical evaluation of the bids. Learned counsel fairly stated that the technical bid of all the participants have been cleared with the intention to award the contract to a person who is the lowest bidder, even though he may not technically qualified.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Syed Moos Quadri v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others, AIR 1987 AP 6 wherein the Court in Para 16 has observed as under:-

“16. But at the same time, it must be emphasised that when The Expert Body is enjoined to evaluate the relative suitability of the intending contractors or firms, though is of executive in nature, their discretion is not unbriddled and their decision must not be arbitrary or capricious. An arbitrary decision is anathema to reason. Statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice. Reasoned decision is not only vital to show that the citizen is receiving justice but also gives a valuable discipline to the body or the Tribunal itself. Reasons ignite their wavelength to fuse the gulf between the record and the maker's mind. It also assists the Court in judging whether the exercise of the power is validly made and proper reasons have been given or is stemmed from extraneous consideration. Duty to give reasons is a sine qua non for a valid order and is a responsible one and it cannot be held to have been discharged by the use of vague or general terms. From the omission to record reasons, the Court may have to assume that he had no good reasons or that the authority had not applied its mind or was acting arbitrarily. The authority or the body cannot disarm the Court by taking refuge in silence. Insistence on reasons therefore is a valuable safeguard against the exercise of the discretionary power.”

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principle of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not in exercise of powers of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural abrasion or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual dispute. Tenderers and Contractors with a grievance can always seek damages in a Civil Court. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In respect of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment in the case of H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority v. Univeral Estate & Anr., AIR 2011 SCC 887.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner had raised four objections. Those objections have been rejected without assigning any reasons as per Clause 15.1 and 15.2 of the Tender Document. Reasons are to be assigned for rejection of the objections. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent has produced the original records in relation to the tender in question, wherein in it can be seen that the order of rejection of technical bid was not supplied to the petitioner. Order dated 16.12.2021 also does not disclose any reason. Accordingly, the Orders dated 16.12.2021 and 03.01.2022 cannot be allowed to stand and, therefore, the same are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the technical evaluation of the bids after deciding the objections of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.