WP(C) 2233/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. B.D. AGARWAL The writ petitioner herein is challenging the work order dated 31.3.2011 issued by the Director of Physical Plant, Assam Agricultural University whereby the sai d respondent has awarded the work of construction of Hostel Building at C.O.F. K achamari, Nowgaon, respondent No.4 at 6% above the estimated cost. Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner a nd Mr. P Katakey, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5. I have al so perused the NIT and the pleadings of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the ter ms and conditions of the tender notice, the intending tenderers were required to submit separate tender for four items. In view of the aforesaid language of the NIT, the writ petitioner submitted his tender only for item No.3 i.e., for cons truction of Hostel Building and his offer was 11.5% below the estimated cost. Ho wever, the respondents No.1 to 3 have allotted the work to the respondent No.4 at 6% above the estimated cost which is in violation of the principle of awardin g the work to the lowest bidder. The learned counsel also submitted that the con cerned authorities have also violated the guidelines laid down by the Central Vi gilance Commission, Govt. of India prohibiting from making any negotiation excep t with the lowest bidder. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel also referred to the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd -Vs- Indo Merch antiles Pvt. Ltd and Others; reported in (1997) 1 SCC 53 wherein their Lordships have observed that awarding of any supply order with a particular tender on the ground that the bid of other tenderers were not within the viability range c annot be accepted unless viability range is mentioned in the NIT itself. Their Lordships have further observed that the entire procedure for awarding work ord er should be clearly stated in the tender notice. In the present case, the respondent No.4 had offered their rates for all the four works and their offer was 10% above the estimated cost. The se ttling authority was of the view that it would be proper to get the work done th rough a single contractor. Besides this, in the affidavit of the respondents No. 1 to 3 it was stated that the respondent No.4 had good infrastructure and past e xperience. However, in the additional affidavit filed by the said respondents on 27.9.2011 it has been admitted that the respondent No.4 has allotted the work t o different sub constrictors. This statement is contradictory to the plea taken in the original affidavit about the sound infrastructure of respondent No.4. The above apart, the respondents No.1 to 3 have taken another gr ound to favour the respondent No.4. According to the aforesaid respondents, the offer of the writ petitioner below 10% was against the Office Memorandum dated 1 4.3.2011 issued by the Govt. of Assam. In the said O.M. it has been stated that no work should be allotted below 10% of the scheduled rate as it would encourage for getting substandard and unspecified work. However, the said condition was n ot incorporated in the NIT. I have also found that not only the writ petitioner, some other contractors have also offered to execute the work against the item No.3 either a t par or below. However, their tenders were also not considered. It may be menti oned herein that one of the contractors had quoted 3% below the estimated cost, another contractor 5% and one contractor was ready to execute the work at par. D espite that the respondents No. 1 to 3 allotted the work to the respondent No.4 at 6% above the estimated cost. Having regard to all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that it is a fit case that the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to review their decision to award the work for the construction of Hostel Building. I mak e it clear that any observation made in this judgment shall not influence the ex pert committee of the respondent No.1 to 3, while taking fresh decision in this regard. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands dispose d of. Stay order passed earlier stands vacated.