BALIRAM Vs. CHHATTISGARH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the rejection of his tender submitted online, allegedly for not satisfying the requirement in the corrigendum/ notification. The case of the Petitioner is that the reason for rejection is hyper technical and hence, interference of this Court is called for.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the Respondent.

(3.) The sum and substance of the case is that a tender notification was issued by the Respondent way back on 11.03.2019 for supply of Bullock Drawn Hand Operated Agriculture Implements, prescribing the last date and the manner in which, the tender was to be submitted. The case of the Petitioner is that, the Petitioner satisfied all the requirements and by virtue of the qualification and credentials, necessary tender submitted online, was well within the stipulated time (having submitted the same on 06.05.2019 before 11.30 am). The bid submitted by the Petitioner came to be rejected as let known to him vide Annexure P/5 dated 11.06.2019, which made the Petitioner to prefer Annexure P/6 representation on 18.06.2019 seeking for indulgence of the Respondent stating that the 'notarized document' has been submitted subsequently and that the Petitioner's price bid might be considered accordingly.