KRISHNA BALLABH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. N. Babulkar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sushil Vashisth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State and Sri N. S. Negi, the learned counsel for respondent No.4

(2.) THE Court has also perused the original record which was produced by the respondents.

(3.) THE facts, leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that a tender notice dated 3rd March, 2011 was issued, inviting applications for supply of food in the Hospital at Srinagar in District Pauri Garhwal for a period of three years. Pursuant to this tender notice, the petitioner applied, but the said tender was cancelled on account of the fact that only one person had applied. The respondent thereafter issued a fresh tender on 21.5.2011, inviting applications afresh for supply of food in the Hospital. It transpires that 4 tenders were received. The Selection Committee opened the technical bids of all the 4 tenderers. The Selection Committee recorded in its minutes of 4th July, 2011 that the technical bids of M/s. Prime Services Delhi and M/s. Deepak Nautiyal of Srinagar were found to be in order, meaning thereby, that the technical bids of the two other tenderers, including the technical bid of the petitioner, was not found to be in order and were consequently rejected. The minutes of the Selection Committee further records that the financial bids of 3 persons were opened, namely, of M/s. Prime Services Delhi, M/s Deepak Nautiyal and Krishna Ballabh, i.e., the petitioner and, on the basis of the comparative chart so prepared, came to the conclusion that the financial bid of the petitioner cannot be accepted since he did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the technical bid, i.e., to say he did not supply the solvency certificate and security of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. The Selection Committee accepted the bid of M/s. Deepak Nautiyal and accordingly granted him the contract. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee in awarding the contract to respondent No.4, has filed the present writ petition.