respondent/authorities ought to have entered such stipulation in the tender notice. No power of relaxation was indicated in the tender notice. Admittedly, the notification dated 02.10.2014 does not even find a mention in the e-tender. By not doing so, the respondent/authorities have pre-empted many other Cooperative labour and Contractive Societies from participating in the tender process and who have not submitted their bid in the light of condition No.3 for pre-qualification and being not in knowledge that a relaxation would have been available as has been shown to favour respondent No.6. Action of the respondent/authorities is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Air India Limited Vs. Cochin International Airport Limited, (2000) 2 SCC 617 and wherein it was held that the State or a public sector corporation while awarding a contract was free to grant relaxation only if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. 11. That apart, we may notice that a situation was created whereby the tender process was made less competitive and which can never be construed to be a prudent commercial decision. A perusal of the communication dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-23) from the Superintending Engineer, RSD, Civil Circle Shahpur Kandi Township and the contents whereof are not disputed by the State, respondent No.6 had been stated to be ineligible and the present petitioner was the sole entity to have been successful at their pre-qualification stage. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer had recommended to re-tender the cited job work. In our considered view, such recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer should have been accepted by the competent authority/Chief Engineer, RSD and who has proceeded in an arbitrary fashion to act upon a
