Petitioner herein approached the Court at the earliest opportunity on 22nd December, 2023, without any delay. Admittedly, no letter of award has been issued in favour of Respondent No. 2. It has also come on record that Respondent No. 2 is a sole bidder. The disqualification of the Petitioner and the 3rd bidder, M/s Shivakriti International Ltd., on an untenable ground has given an unjustified advantage to Respondent No. 2 on the issue of Financial Bids. In fact, it is in public interest that if Petitioner and M/s Shivakriti International Ltd. are technically qualified, their financial bids should be considered so that the public exchequer can be conserved. In fact, public interest would be served if the Financial Bids of all technically qualified bidders are opened and considered. The Petitioner herein has averred in his writ petition that the financial bid of the Petitioner is about 10% less than the bid of Respondent No. 2. 34. Since in the facts of this case, the effect of the writ petition being allowed would be that the letter dated 20th December, 2023, is set aside and Respondent No. 1 would be required to open the bid of the Petitioner and M/s Shivakriti International Ltd., no time will be lost in the process. 35. The reliance placed by the Respondent on the judgment of N.G. Projects Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case as in the said matter the petitioner therein (unsuccessful bidder) had approached the High Court after the work had been awarded, contract had been executed and partially implemented between the parties. Further, the unsuccessful bidder in the said writ petition was technically disqualified.
