TEJ RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dy. Commissioner, Kathua, invited tenders for the transportation of foodgrains and other controlled commodities from and to the places mentioned in the tender notice, annexure A for the period ending with March, 1985. Cl.(2) of the tender notice provided that tenders must be accompanied by a separate call deposit receipt of Rs. 200/- on Scheduled Bank pledged to the Dy. Commissioner, as earnest money without which no tender would be considered valid. Isher Dass, respondent 5 was declared to be the lowest bidder but he had furnished call deposit receipt of Rs. 100/- only instead of Rs. 200/-. Tej Ram, petitioner, who was the next lowest bidder, has filed the present petition for quashing the order of respondent 2 Director, Food and Supplies, Jammu, to have been passed on the recommendation of the Dy. Commissioner, Kathua, according sanction for allotment of the work to respondent 5 for the carriage of foodgrains from Kathua Food Stores to various sale depots in Kathua town and other places, as violative of the mandatory conditions of the tender notice and also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the contract to him at the rate mentioned by him in his tender.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 have filed objections submitting therein that at the time of opening of the tenders in presence of the tenderers, Isher Dass respondent 5, gave a plausible explanation to the effect that he was misled because copy of the tender-notice which he received had printed defect as figures '200' was being read as '100'. On the perusal of the tender notice issued to respondent 2 the said defect was obvious and because of that respondent 5 also furnished another call deposit receipt for Rs. 100/-. The rate of Rs. 0.80 p. per quintal quoted and offered by respondent 5 was the lowest as against other tenders received.

(3.) Isher Dass respondent 5 has also filed objections averring therein that writ petition is not maintainable as no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner is involved. He being the lowest tenderer, was entitled for the contract work. There was only a technical omission in furnishing the call deposit as figures were not legible. Moreover, condition to deposit Rs. 200/- was not substantial one so as to disqualify him for the allotment of work.