M.K.ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision of the this writ petition depends upon the answering of the following questions:-

(2.) FIRST the relevant facts may be noticed. Chief Engineer, Project Deepak, Minto Court, Shimla, respondent No.2 herein, invited tenders through notice for handling and conveyance of Bitumen from ex-refinery Panipat to 507 SS& TC (GREF) at Hallomajra (Chandigarh) and various locations on Hindustan-Tibet and Dhami-Kingal Road in Himachal Pradesh under 38 BRTF of Project Deepak. The estimated cost of the work was rupees fifteen lacs. Tender documents could be had by the approved applicants on or after 16th May, 2006. The tenders were to be submitted up to 15 hours on 25th May, 2006. The same were to be opened immediately after the time stipulated for the submission of the documents, on 25th May, 2006. The writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 were among those who submitted the tenders for the work. The petitioner quoted the lowest rate, i.e. 277% above the rates given in Schedule-A, while the rate quoted by the respondent No.4 was 279% above the said schedule rate. In spite of the rate quoted by the petitioner being lowest, contract was awarded to respondent No. 4, because he had quoted another rate on a piece of paper, which was 183% above the rate mentioned in Schedule-A. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that respondent No. 4 could not have been awarded the contract on the basis of the rate quoted by him on a separate sheet of paper, which was not part of the sealed tender submitted by him. The action of respondents No. 1 to 3 in awarding the contract to respondent No. 4 on the basis of the rate quoted on a separate sheet of paper is alleged to be illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary, contrary to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tenders and also violative of Articles 14, 19 (i) (g) and 299 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that the rate quoted by the writ petitioner was the lowest compared to the rates quoted by other tenderers in the tender forms and therefore, the contract ought to have been awarded to him. Prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the letter dated 20.6.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby contract for the job has been awarded to respondent No. 4. Prayer has also been made for issuing a writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to award the contract to the writ petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 in his reply has alleged that he submitted the revised rate in the form of a letter that had been deposited in the tender box in terms of Rule 2.7 of MES Precis, Vol. II and the same was retrieved from that box alongwith the tenders to the knowledge of the petitioner and the latter raised no objection at the time when the comparative chart was prepared and the revised rate quoted by him in the aforesaid letter was entered in the comparative chart. He has alleged that the petitioner was aware of the provision of Rule 2.7 aforesaid.