(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kalpesh L Nadia appearing for the petitioner, learned AGP Niraj Ashar appearing for respondent no.1 and 2. notice has already been served on respondent no.3 but he has not chosen to put appearance or to file affidavit in reply. Since the affidavit have been exchanged,with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,we have taken up this petition for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The respondent no.2 Superintendent of Police has issued an advertisement in daily news paper “Gujarat Samachar” on 21st May 2012, inviting tenders for providing office facilities and management services in the office of District Superintendent Patan and other offices, Police Stations, Out-Post as well as Chowki coming under control and supervision of the respondent no.2.
3. The tender notice clearly indicated that the blank tender forms will be sold on deposit of a bank draft of Rs. 1000/- between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. From 21st May to 25th May 2012. It was also mentioned in the tender notice that pre-tender meeting shall be held on 25th May 2012 at 04.00 p.m. The petitioner has applied on 23rd May 2012 which was received in the office of respondent no.2 on 24th May 2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent no.3 has filed his tender application on 25th May 2012 after the expiry of time limit fixed in the advertisement.
5. It is not disputed by the learned AGP that the respondent no.2 has sold the tender form to the respondent no.3 after the time limit mentioned in the tender notice expired.
6. The explanation given by the respondent no.2 in paragraph no.8 of his affidavit is that the respondent no.3 met the officials of respondent no.2 in his office and conveyed him, that they have gathered knowledge about the tender a little late and he had deposited an amount of Rs. 1000/- with the Bank for issuing bank draft for purchasing blank tender form,but the bank draft could not be delivered within time.
7. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply it has been stated as under :
“Upon the said request made by the representative of the aforesaid two institutions,l the concerned officer has informed them that without the demand draft, it would not be possible for him to issue blank tender form but as stated hereinabove, from the very beginning, the intention of the office of the deponent is to invite as many as possible institution for participating as the tender process, so that competitive rates and quality services can be availed and therefore, the concerned officer has told them that the blank tender from will be issued to them, as an when they will give along with demand draft of Rs. 1000/-. It is submitted that at around 04:30 p.m. i.e. before the closing hours of the office, the said two institutions have deposited the demand draft of Rs. 1000/- and therefore, the blank tender form were issued in their favour. At this juncture, it is required to be mentioned that mere issuance of blank tender form does not make them eligible for awarding tender.”
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit in reply it is clear that the closing time of the issuance of blank tender form was 01:00 p.m., thereafter as per tender notice, pre bid meeting was fixed for 04:00 p.m. even thereafter at 04:30 p.m. the respondent no.3 and one more person have deposited bank draft of Rs. 1000/- and respondent no.2 has issued them blank tender forms, which was in clear violation of the terms of the tender notice and it clearly demonstrates that undue favour given by respondent no.2, to respondent no.3 which was not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice. The sale of blank tender form after 1:00 p.m. to respondent no.3 was arbitrary.
9. In the result the issuance of blank tender form to the respondent no.3 and one more person without depositing bank draft of Rs. 1000/- after 01:00 p.m., can not be upheld,in view of the fact that the petitioner has also filed bank certificate which shows that the bank drafts were issued to the respondent no.3 and one more person by the bank after 04:00 p.m., which is clear from “annexure C” to the writ petition. Therefore, the issuance of tender form to the respondent no.3 and award of tender to respondent no.
3 and thereafter the contract by the respondent no. 2 deserves to be quashed.
10. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The issuance of blank tender form and the consequential award of contract in favour of respondent no.3, by the respondent no.2 is quashed. It shall be open to the respondent no.2 to reconsider the eligible tenders. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(V. M. SAHAI,J.) deepak (G.B.SHAH,J.)