(1.) IT has been stated that the petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. IT is engaged in the business of execution of infrastructural projects, by way of turn key contracts, for water supply schemes and other works. The petitioner company has been executing contracts for the water supply boards in the various States of India and it has considerable experience and expertise in such works. While so, the first respondent had floated a tender calling for offers, with regard to certain water supply works, to be carried out under the Vellakoil Municipality, the Kangeyam Town Panchayat and in 174 other rural habitations in Erode and Tiruppur Districts.
(2.) IT has also been stated that the petitioner company had submitted the tender for the said works. The bid comprised of a 2-tier system, with technical bid and price bid. The bidder was required to furnish a bid security of Rs.20,00,000/- in any of the specified forms. Certain conditions had been specified, with regard to the bid security to be furnished by the bidder.
(3.) IT had been further stated that, pursuant to the negotiations, the petitioner company had agreed to give a rebate of 0.5% on the quoted percentage of 9% excess. While so, on 12.7.2010, the first respondent had addressed a letter requesting the petitioner to extend the validity of the tender for the works upto 21.9.2010, as the original validity was only upto 21.7.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner had agreed to the extension of the validity of the tender, till 21.9.2010. However, by the communication, dated 14.7.2010, the first respondent had stated that the bid offered by the petitioner would only be taken as 9% less than the quoted amount in the 'Abstract of Bill of Quantities', as per Clause 5 of the Note in the tender conditions. Since, the petitioner was claiming for a modification and as the petitioner company was not willing to undertake the works at 9% less than the quoted rate, the bid, submitted by it, was treated as 'non-responsive', as per clauses 23.3, 23.4 and 27.2 of the tender conditions. Therefore, the bid security of Rs.20,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner company in the form of deposit receipt, bearing No.421280, dated 22.3.2010, issued by Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, was forfeited. Further, by a letter, dated 14.7.2010, the first respondent had issued a fresh tender invitation as the second call for tender, for the said works, on 27.9.2010. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.