UNIQUE MOTOR TRANSPORT Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this writ petition is admitted for final hearing and keeping in view the controversy involved in it. It is being disposed of.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 floated tender notice vide Annexure "A" dated 15th March 99. By means of this notice sealed tenders were invited from reputed and registered transport contractors for supply of Trucks, which were required by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) for deployment to various intending agencies in the following sectors for the year 1999 -2000 on the terms detailed in the said tender notice.

(3.) WHOLE case of the petitioner is that since the tender submitted by respondent No. 3 was not accompanied by the Call Deposit Receipt (CDR), as such his tender being incomplete, not fulfilling the requisite condition in that behalf, therefore it was liable to be rejected and in fact should have been rejected by respondents 1 and 2. Instead of following Clause 3 (supra) in its letter and spirit, respondents 1 and 2 on the contrary have allowed respondent No. 3 to participate in the tender as also having opened the same in the presence of petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other tenderers who had submitted their tenders. It may be noted here that respondent No. 3 preferred a suit in the Court of learned Sub -Judge Judicial Magistrate (Forest), Srinagar, wherein interim order dated 6th April 99 was passed in the following terms: