RAJIV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the competent authority vide Annexure P -2 on 12.3.2015 rejecting the tender and offer submitted by the petitioner on the grounds indicated in Annexure P -2, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) ON 23rd of January 2015, the Excise Commissioner, M.P., published a detailed notice inviting tender for settlement of country spirit and foreign liquor shop in various District in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the financial year 2015 -2016. The detail procedure for tender and the terms and conditions for supply of the liquor and various other aspects were indicated in the tender document. For the purpose of deciding this case, it is suffice to say that one of the condition stipulated in the tender was that final bid it is to be contained in second envelope should contain a cheque for 12% of the tender amount as published in the newspaper so also a cheque amounting to 1/12th of the tender amount. Petitioner enclosed the cheques but did not put any date on the cheque nor was the name of the person authorized to encash the cheque indicated in the cheque. Accordingly, as the cheque was found to be defective by the Tender Scrutiniy Committee and by the impugned order the tender of the petitioner has been rejected on account of the fact that the petitioner has submitted incomplete tender.

(3.) SHRI Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel tried to argue that under the terms and conditions of the tender clerical and methematical error was permitted to be corrected and as the error of the petitioner in not mentioning the name of the person in whose favour the cheque is drawn and non mentioning of the date is a clerical error, the same could have been rectified and in support thereof reference is made to a unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.3836/2012 (Harpal Singh Bhatia v. State of M.P. and others)to say that such an error could be corrected.