(1.) Government of Himachal Pradesh, in the Department of Public Works, issued NIT (Notice Inviting Tender), by a notification dated November 19, 2004, from the eligible Contractors/Firms enlisted with the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department for the construction of multi-storeyed building at Bal Ashram, Tuti Kandi, Shimla (SH: Civil work and WS and ST etc.) for an estimated cost of rupees 17,83,673/- so as to reach the office of the Executive Engineer, Shimla Division No. 3 up to 11.00 a.m. of December 20, 2004. The tenders were to be opened on the same day at 11.30 a.m. in the presence of the intending Contractors/Firms who may be present. The sale of the tenders was to be closed on December 18, 2004 at 4.00 p.m. Four tenders that of Respondents No. 3 to 6 were received in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Respondent No. 2. The tender of the Respondent No. 5 Himkailash Builders being lowest, was accepted after examination and completion of the formalities. The construction work was started by the Respondent No. 5 immediately after the award of the work to him.
(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that he, being a registered Government Contractor, with the Respondents No. 1 and 2 was entitled to tender for the work in question. He went to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Division No. 4, Respondent No. 2, on December 18, 2004 at about 11.00 a.m. along with one Harvinder Singh. He applied for the supply of the tender documents by an application and also paid/deposited rupees 250/- as cost of the tender document. Harvinder Singh also moved similar application for the supply of tender form at the same time. After the deposit of the cost of the tender documents, the Petitioner asked for tender documents but one Hira Lal Chauhan Dealing Assistant and Mukand Lal Sharma, another Dealing Assistant, informed the Petitioner and the said Harvinder Singh that estimates in respect of the tender have not been sanctioned therefore, the tenders are being cancelled and corrigendum to this effect is being issued. The Respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer, also confirmed this fact. The Petitioner was told to enquire about the date of the issuance of fresh notice after a week or so. The Petitioner went to the office of the Respondent No. 2 on December 29, 2004 but to his dismay, he found that the tender documents were issued for this work on December 18, 2004 to Respondents No. 3 to 6 and contract has been awarded to the Respondent No. 5.
(3.) The Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their return, controvert the allegations. According to the Respondents No. 1 and 2, an application was received on behalf of the Petitioner for the issue of the tender document. The Executive Engineer allowed this application with endorsement "may issue" but the Petitioner did not deposit or pay rupees 250/- the price of the tender documents nor any of his representatives came to receive the tender document. This application was received on December 17, 2004. Even though tender documents were prepared for him but he did not come even on December 18, 2004, the last date for the sale of tender documents. Only four tenders that of Respondents No. 3 to 6 were received and the work was awarded to the Respondent No. 5 being the lowest tenderer after completing the formalities, including the approval of the Superintending Engineer in accordance with rules. It is denied that the earnest money was not paid or deposited by the Respondents No. 3 to 6. It is the stand of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 that the earnest money was deposited by the Respondents No. 3 to 6 in the shape of fixed deposit receipts and national saving certificates. The earnest money of lowest tenderer Respondent No. 5, was retained by the Respondent No. 2 and the earnest money in shape of Fixed Deposit by the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 were returned to them being unsuccessful tenderers.