GAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, HALDWANI, DISTRICT NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENDER for infrastructure maintenance for the District of Nainital floated by the re­spondents was responded by the appellant. The bid given by the appellant was in two parts. The first was technical bid and the second financial bid. After the technical bid was opened, it transpired that the ap­pellant fulfills the necessary criteria. Ac­cordingly, the financial bid given by the appellant was opened along with another bid given by another tenderer. It transpired that the bid given by the appellant was lower than the estimated cost of the work, as was envisaged in the tender notice. It also transpired that the bid so given by the appellant was lower than the bid of the other tenderer. Recommendation was ac­cordingly made for acceptance of the bid of the appellant. The matter was there­upon forwarded to the High Power Com­mittee. The High Power Committee evalu­ated the bid given by the appellant and compared the same with the bid given for similar work for Moradabad district. At that time, it transpired that the bid given by the appellant is almost double the amount of the bid given by the lowest tenderer for Moradabad district. High Power Committee, accordingly, opined that the price offer thus given in the bid of the appellant is on the higher side and, accordingly, could not be accepted. Ac­cepting the views thus expressed by High Power Committee, the tender was can­celled. Challenging the same a writ peti­tion was filed by the appellant, which having been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, the present ap­peal has been filed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was a requirement, as was disclosed in the tender notice, that for the man power to be engaged for Ihe work in question, the appellant would be re­quired to pay atleast the minimum wages payable to workmen doing similar work as notified by the Central Government and on top of that he would be required to pay other statutory dues on account of such workmen including E.S.I., Provident Fund, etc. It was contended that the bid given by the lowest tenderer for Moradabad district was too low and the price offered did not cover those minimum requirements. It was suggested that ac­cordingly comparison of the tender given by the appellant with the tender given by the lowest tenderer for the District of Moradabad was unjust. The learned coun­sel further submitted that his client has been able to gather subsequent to filing of the writ petition that the tender for Moradabad district has been cancelled. It was submitted that in those circumstances the basic reason for not accepting the tender of the appellant stood wiped out and, accordingly, there can not be any just reason for cancellation of the tei.der.