(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.Y. Deopujari, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate i/b Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
(2.) Considering the facts admitted, as regards the issue involved in this petition, we do not find it necessary to reproduce entire facts of the case. Suffice it to state a few of them which would have bearing on the issue raised herein. A tender notice was issued for awarding the contract of work of Cement Concrete road between Zingabai Takli Godhani (Railway) Bokara and Koradi Road on a patch of National Highway No. 69, Tahsil & District - Nagpur. In response to this notice, bids were received by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It was one of the essential conditions of the bidding document (see condition No. 7.2) that offer in envelope No. 2 must be accompanied by a Demand Draft (DD) or a Bank guarantee of appropriate amount of performance security. As per the condition contained in 2.8.4 of this document, it was clear that if the offer contained in envelope No. 2 was not accompanied by the performance security of the appropriate amount, the offer would be treated as invalid.
(3.) In the present case, although the petitioner was the lowest bidder, envelop No. 2 submitted by him was not in conformity with clause 2.8.4 and also clause 7.2 of the bid document. The DD that was contained in envelope No. 2 fell short of the requisite amount by Rs.30,708/-. These facts are not in dispute. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner was the lowest bidder, the deficiency so found in envelope No. 2, ought to have been viewed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as immaterial or as an insignificant deviation and, therefore, falling within the category of a substantially responsive financial bid under clause 26.2.