- (1.) Heard learned counsel of the petitioner, Sri. Siddharth Dhawan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2, Sri. Fareed Ahmed, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing respondent No. 5.
(2.) By means of the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2018 (annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) whereby work order has been given to the respondent No. 5 relating to Tender No. 1248/EEHQ/17-18 dated 08.02.2018. The tender bid of the petitioner was apparently not considered for the reason that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the tender notice. According to the tender notice, the last date and time of uploading E-Tender was upto 12 p.m. of 05.03.2018. Further according to the note appended to the E-Tender document (page-22 of the paper book), the contractors submitting the E-Tender were also required to submit the original earnest money deposited in the shape of FDR/RTGS along with hard copies of uploaded tender upto bids submission date and time, which was upto 12 p.m. of 05.03.2018. According to the contents of the petition, the petitioner had uploaded the E-Tender on 03.03.2018 at 4:06 p.m. However, he submitted the hard copies of the uploaded tender at 12:30 p.m. on 05.03.2018. Since the hard copies were submitted beyond the time prescribed in the E-Tender document, the tender of the petitioner was not taken up for consideration while opening the bids.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. B.K.Singh has vehemently contended that this condition in the E-Tender document of submitting the hard copies upto bid submission date and time is contrary to the relevant Government orders in that regard. According to him, Government orders provided that the hard copies of the uploaded tender and the original FDR/RTGS of the EMD could be submitted at the time of opening of tender and not before. Referring to relevant Government orders, Sri. Singh has submitted that the rejection for non consideration of the tender of the petitioner by the respondent were arbitrary illegal and contrary to the Government orders. He also submits that this condition could not have been imposed by the respondents and, therefore, submits that the tender of the petitioner may be considered as it was the lowest or in the alternative direction may be issued for issuing fresh E-Tender notice after setting aside the proceedings of the previous tender notice and quashing the work order given to respondent No. 5;