The petitioner challenges the action on the part of the respondents in proceeding to award the contract work in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was also a tenderer. The tender was called for by E-tender process. As per the tender conditions, tenderers were directed to submit hard copy of the tender before opening of the tender. The petitioner submits that when the tender was opened his quote was 3.60% lesser from the estimated amount and the 3rd respondent quote was 3.28% lesser than the estimated amount. Despite the fact that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer, the work has been awarded in favour of the 3rd respondent.
2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent inter-alia stating that the tenderers had to submit hard copy of the documents before opening the
WP(C).No.15033/2014-D.
2 tender. The petitioner did not produce the same and as a result of that he was disqualified and the tender has been awarded in favour of the 3rd respondent who is the second lowest tenderer who quoted 3.28% below the estimated rate. A reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had handed over the hard copy of the tender with Smt.Jayasree Kumari, Junior Superintendent on 4.6.2014 at 10.15 am., who received the same and therefore there was a valid tender. It is also stated in the reply- affidavit that the letter mentioned by the Govt.Pleader was one demanded by Smt.Jayasree Kumari on the next day. She asked him to prepare a letter in such a fashion with previous date, so as to award the contract in his favour, which he obliged in the contention.
3. The learned Govt.Pleader produced the files relating to the aforesaid work which contains the letter dated 4.6.2014. In the said letter the petitioner admitted that he was unable to give the hard copy of the tender on the date of opening of the tender. In such circumstances,
WP(C).No.15033/2014-D.
3 when there was an admission from the petitioner as evident from the letter dated 4.6.2014 which forms part of the files, it is clear that the petitioner could not produce the hard copy of the tender though there was such an obligation as per the conditions in the notice inviting tender. The petitioner did not disclose these facts in the writ petition.
4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of notice inviting tender conditions and the petitioner did not disclose the entire factual materials before this Court while filing the writ petition, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, (Judge)
Kvs/-
// true copy // PA TO JUDGE.