(1.) This judgment shall govern writ petition Nos. 15787, 15788 and 15789 of 1998, since a common controversy is involved in these petitions.
(2.) The following factual scenario will highlight the controversy:- The petitioner is the Proprietor of a building construction firm. Sealed tenders were invited by the 4th respondent from contractors for taking several items of works in relation to construction of 112 tenements at Valluvar Kudiyiruppu as also for the development works in Corporation Division No. 107. Amongst the tender conditions, the following tender conditions are relevant:- By the first tender condition, only contractors registered under Class-I with the 1st respondent or any other Government Department Undertakings with monetary limits of Rs. 25 lakhs and above were eligible to participate. Secondly, it was insisted that the tenderer should be an assessee of Income-tax and should also attach the Income-tax Clearance Certificate along with the tender. It was also provided that a Contractor should have executed works of similar nature costing more than 50% of the value of works for which tender is given in any single contract. It was further provided that the tenders should be accompanied by three envelopes 'A', 'B' and 'C' duly superscribed with the name of work, reference number, due date of tender and the name of the tenderer and should be sealed with the following particulars:- "Envelop 'A' should contain Earnest Money Deposit; envelop 'B' should contain pre-qualification schedules; and envelop 'C' should contain price schedules." It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions of pre-qualification. He further pleads that he submitted his tender within the time limit fixed for that purpose. It is then pleaded that there were only four tenderers before the fourth respondent for the consideration of the tender. According to the petitioner, tender envelopes of all the four tenderers were opened and the authorities took time for analysing the data and a letter dated 1-9-1998 was sent by the fourth respondent to the petitioner to produce several documents, which were produced by the petitioner on 7-9-1998 at 3 p.m. The petitioner further pleads that a further letter dated 7-9-1998 was received by him wherein it was informed that the price schedule contained in cover 'C' would be opened on 10th September, 1998 at 3 p.m. and on the opening of the same, it was found that the price schedule quoted by the petitioner was the lowest being 6.48% lower than the estimated cost. The petitioner further says that probably, finding that his tender was the lowest, the 5th and 6th respondents had given objection on 11-9-1998 that the submission of his tender was not in the proper form. However, that objection was overruled and he was called for discussions and was requested to lower down his prices which he did vide: his letter dated 12-9-1998 addressed to the fourth respondent. The petitioner says that because of all these, he was expecting the work order, but to his surprise, he received a letter dated 23-9-1998 that his tender had not been accepted and that he was requested to contact the Executive Engineer for the refund of the Earnest Money Deposit. He points out that no reasons were assigned for the rejection of the tender. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the rejection of the tender and prays for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 23-9-1998 and for further direction that the tender should be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) The stand taken by the respondents is that the tender envelopes submitted by the petitioner were not sealed nor was the tender in the proper form inasmuch as the price schedules were not totalled. However, since the Chief Engineer found that the offer by the petitioner was lower, his tender was recommended to the Tender Committee for being accepted in spite of the lapses. It is pointed out that even the Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer has strongly objected to the acceptance of the tender of the petitioner. Firstly, on the ground that the tenders were opened by the Executive Engineer, Division-V when he was not the Authorised Officer to open the tenders. According to the Financial Adviser, it was only the Superintending Engineer (Central) who should have opened the tender, he being the tender calling authority. The second objection was that the tender envelopes should be properly sealed. As the envelopes of the petitioner were not sealed, the tender was liable to be rejected forthwith in keeping with the condition of the tenders. The Financial Adviser had pointed out that even the 'C' envelope, which contained the price schedules, was also not sealed. The respondents, therefore, took a stand that the Committee took a decision to cancel the tenders and call for re-tenders at a short notice. While recommending the cancellation of the tenders, the Committee also took a stand that one more condition should be incorporated that the Contractor should be executed the works of similar nature costing more than 50% of the value of works in a single contract pertaining only to the Government Departments. The respondents, therefore, pleaded that since the second tender is already called, the writ petition becomes infructuous. As regards the introduction of new condition, they say that this condition was introduced only in consonance with the situation prevailing in the other departments and in the interest of the poor slum-dwellers.