RAJESH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of contract in favour of respondent No.4 by respondents No.1 to 3.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Himachal Pradesh IPH Department for various works numbering 9, vide Annexure P-1, dated 29.9.2010. The tenders were to be received till 30.10.2010 and were to be opened on the same at 3.30 p.m. in the presence of contractors or their authorized representatives. It is averred that the petitioners purchased the tender document and they also submitted the tenders alongwith the required documents. The tenders were opened on the appointed date and on scrutiny it was found that respondent No.4 has submitted his bid for the tender for various works in which certain conditions have been stipulated. Accordingly, the petitioners raised a protest in writing with respondent No.3 that the conditional tenders cannot be accepted. A further representation was also made to respondent No.3 but no decision was conveyed to the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that in spite of their protests, the contract was awarded to respondent No.4 in departure of the terms of the Notice Inviting Tenders and the action of respondent No.3 was, therefore, alleged to be illegal, liable to be quashed and it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the evaluation of the bids of the works in question only of those parties who have submitted the tenders without any condition.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to Annexure P-1 (Page 11), which is Notice Inviting Tender, in which the following condition was laid down: