- (1.)This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3521 of 2003. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the award of a contract to respondent No. 7 pursuant to the tender notice issued on 20-8-2002. Pursuant to the tender notification, a number of tenders were submitted. On 16-9-2002, the bids were evaluated and it was found that 40 tenderers had not produced certain documents which were considered by the Technical Evaluation Committee to be necessary. It was therefore decided to give an opportunity to all of them to produce those documents. Forty letters were prepared for dispatch calling upon the technically qualified tenderers to submit; those documents. The documents were to be submitted before 31-3-2003. Due to some error in the department, the letters were dispatched only on 31-3-2003 calling for submission of the relevant documents by 31-3-2003. Obviously, the letters were not received in time. But about 30 of the tenderers came to know about the requirement for production of certain documents even before they received the letters from the department. They .made available the documents. But six of them including respondent No. 7 herein did not submit the documents by 31-3-2003.
(2.)On 5-4-2003, the financial bids were opened. The financial bid of 31 contractors who had produced the relevant papers were opened and it was found that the appellant was the lowest bidder and the financial bids of respondent No. 7 and five others were rejected on the basis that, they had not produced the documents called for. Their financial bids were not opened on 5-4-2003, as a consequence. But on 9-4-2003, respondent No. 7 wrote a letter to the department pointing out that the letter calling upon respondent No,. 7 to produce the documents fixing 31-3-2003 as the last date for submission of those papers had been dispatched only on 31-3-2003 and this was unjust since the letters were received only on 4-4-2003 and it would have been impossible to comply with the demand contained in the letter. It was therefore requested that an opportunity be given to them to produce the relevant documents. The department realising that a mistake has been made in the matter of despatch of the communications decided to give those tenderers also an opportunity to produce the documents. Departmental action was also initiated against those who are responsible for the non-despatch of the letters in time.
(3.)Pursuant to the opportunity given, six tenderers submitted their documents. This included respondent No. 7 also. The evaluation took place on 2nd and 3rd June, 2003 and it was found that respondent No. 7 and two other persons who had submitted the relevant documents were eligible. It was therefore decided that the financial bid of respondent No. 7 be opened. A decision was taken that since the appellant was found to be the lowest bidder when the tenders were opened on 5-4-2003, the tender of respondent No. 7 should be opened in the presence of the appellant. Therefore, notice was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to be present and the appellant was represented on 3-6-2003 when the financial bid of respondent No. 7, which had not been opened earlier, was opened. This is clear from Page 60 of the file produced before us by the respodnents. On opening the financial bid of respondent No. 7, it was found that respondent No. 7 was the lowest bidder and being also technically qualified, it was decided to award the contract to respondent No. 7. It was in that situation that the appellant came to this Court with the writ petition.