GAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER submitted the tender form obtaining liquor shops. He has prayed that his financial bid be opened and it be ordered to be accepted in case it is highest, and, to provide reasonable time to the petitioner to comply with the required formalities.

(2.) PETITIONER has averred that petitioner submitted tender for obtaining licence of the shops in question. Due to work pressure and bona fide mistake, he submitted the tender Form I in the envelop meant for financial bid. On the ground that petitioner did not submit Tender Form Part I, his financial bid has not been opened and has resulted into rejection of his tender which was highest. PETITIONER submitted the representation, same was without any avail. Under the Policy (P-2) for the year 2010-11, the tenders were invited in Form (P-3). PETITIONER submits that he submitted draft of security amount, consent agreement, self-attested documents relating to photo identity proof and resident proof, PAN Card, attested copy of bank account number, notarized affidavit, but wrongly placed the tender form Part I in the financial bid envelope No. 2, both the envelops were put in a bigger envelop and the forms were deposited vide receipts (P-4 and P-5). On coming to know of the mistake, petitioner moved an application that tender form Part I has been placed in tender form Part II. The Collector Excise has passed an order (P-6) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to open the financial bid. As against Order (P-6) passed by the Collector, Excise, petitioner filed representation before Excise Commissioner. Representation has been rejected vide Order (P-1), dated 22-3-2010 by the Excise Commissioner. It has been held that envelop of financial bid could not have been opened as tender form Part I was not contained in envelop of eligibility, i.e., envelop No. 1. Hence, instant petition has been preferred.

(3.) SHRI Narendra Singh Kirar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that it was a case of clerical mistake due to which the tender document Part I was placed into envelop No. 2, instead of envelop No. 1. On coming to know of the mistake, prayer was made to open the envelop 2nd containing the financial bid. Rejection of the prayer could not have been said to be legal. By opening the financial bid, State would have been benefited in case contract was granted to the petitioner as his bid was the highest for both the shops. The condition of placing the tender document and other documents in Part I could not be said to be mandatory. Thus, the respondents have acted illegally while rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner and granting the contract of the shops in question to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Petitioner is a common man, he could not be saddled with the responsibility of knowing the technical aspects of law. The purpose of Tender Form I is clerical so as to obtain information at a glance, envelop No. 2 contained unsplited tender document. Submission of both parts of the tender documents was material which were filed. Disqualification of the petitioner could not be said to be a decision taken in accordance with law. Tender of the petitioner could not have been rejected in the circumstances of the case. He has relied upon decisions to be referred later.