KANHAIYALAL AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals (L. P. A. No. 173 of 2001, Kanhaiyalal Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. , L. P. A. No. 198 of 2001, Hukumchand Constructions v. Union of India and Ors. , and L. P. A. No. 211 of 2001, Union of India and Ors. v. Hukumchand Constructions and Anr.) are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8-8-2001 passed in W. P. No. 2171 of 2001.

(2.) RAILWAYS invited tenders for supply, delivery and stacking of 75,000 Cu. M. Machine crushed track ballast as per specifications at Naurozabad Depot in Bilaspur Division from outside the Railway Land and loading into railway wagons. Supply period was 24 months and probable amount of supplies was Rs. 2,57,25,000. 00. The opening date of tender was 1-3-2001. The petitioner Hukumchand Constructions submitted his tender at Shahdol. It was opened at the same place. Clause (2) of the Conditions in the tender required the tenderer to state his rate in words as well as in figures against each item of work as per Schedule attached. Clause (3) stipulated that the tenders submitted with any omissions or alteration of the tender document were liable to be rejected. Permissible corrections were required to be attached and countersigned by the tenderers. Clause (6) required that the tender should hold the offer open till such date as may be specified in the tender which under Clause (16) was for minimum period of 90 days from the date of opening of the lender and contravention of the conditions would automatically result in forfeiture of security deposit. Under Clause (13), tender is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of any of the conditions in the tender form.

(3.) FIVE tenders were received. Petitioner quoted lowest rate as compared to others, therefore, he deserved acceptance of tender and allotment of work against Item 4. Grievance of petitioner is that Kanhaiyalal Agarwal moved application before Divisional Manager (Engg.) S. E. Railways, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) on 1-3-2001 mentioning that in case the contract was given to him within 45 days, 60 days and 75 days, he would extend rebate of 5%, 3% and 2% respectively. The petitioner represented on 5-3-2001 and 26-3-2001 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) that in the event of his tender being accepted within 30 days and 45 days, tender rate may be reduced by 1. 25% and 1% respectively. As against the lowest rate quoted by the petitioner, the tender of Kanhaiyalal Agarwal was accepted. The allegation is that authorities in total violation of the terms and conditions of the tender and with motive to give undue advantage and benefit to Kanhaiyalal Agarwal awarded the tender in his favour by considering the rebate offered by him by way of additional document. This document is not a part of the tender, therefore, such an offer could not have been considered ex parte to the prejudice of the petitioner who had quoted the lowest rates. Hence, conditions of tender were violated by the authorities.