MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In the present appeal what is under consideration is the construction of Veterinary College building at Navsari Agricultural University, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "University"). Since construction of the aforesaid building was required to be done immediately, University released the grant which was going to lapse on 31.03.2009. The University issued a Tender Notice No. 20/2008-09 on 21.11.2008 inviting tenders for construction of Veterinary College building at Navsari Agricultural University, Gujarat. The tender notice was widely advertised through publication in newspaper "Sandesh", being the largest local daily in the State of Gujarat. The tender notice was also published on the internet. The notice inviting tenders required the following from the bidders : a) Pre qualification documents had to be sent by 27.11.2008, failing which the tender would be liable for rejection and will not be opened; i) "AA" Class certificate with minimum 80% of the project cost turnover audited in the last financial year 2007-08; ii) Bidding capacity value should be more than project cost; iii) II Building category registration and above. All the above documents have to be readily available with any builder having continuous work for different authorities. b) Last date of "On Line" submitting of "Price bid" was 28.11.2008. c) Tender fees, Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other documents can be submitted by 04.12.2008.
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement three bids were received by the University out of which one was disqualified at the threshold for not having the requisite experience. Out of the remaining two, the bid of the appellant-M/s. Sorath Builders was the lowest. One of the terms and conditions of the bid was that pre-qualification documents were required to be sent by 27.11.2008. Since the bid of respondent No. 1, Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited was sent on 01.12.2008 i.e. three days after the last date of receiving these documents by the University the bid of respondent No. 1 could not have been opened as it was received beyond the time stipulated and accordingly it was not taken into consideration.;