G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE facts involved in the two writ petitions are identical and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division II, Badaun (Respondent No. 1) issued notice on 13 -8 -1999 inviting tenders in respect of certain works. The petitioners M/s. Shanti Enterprises and some others submitted tenders for various items of work. The tender submitted by M/s. Durga Enterprises, Badaun (Respondent No. 5) was accepted. The writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 2 -9 -1999 by which tender of Respondent No. 5 was accepted. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to accept the petitioner's tender. The rates offered for different types of work by the petitioner and respon ­dent No. 5 are as under: Term Tender No. T -8/99 -2000/Edd IInd Badaun (In Rupees) 11KV Line T/FDP SDP L.T.Line M/s. Durga C -5000 1700 7600 enterprises (Respondent No. 5) E -4950 1800 6500 M/s Shanti C -837 300 1660 Enterprises (Petitioner) E -735 299 984 Term Tender No. T -9/99 -2000/Edd, B -II/Badaun M/s. Durga C -5000 1700 7600 Enterprises (Respondent No. 5) E -4900 1800 6500 M/s. Shanti C -4200 1400 1100 7050 Enterprises (Petitioner) E -3760 1450 1100 4250 Terra Tender No. 6/99 -2000/Edd -II Badaun M/s. Shanti C -2597 1000 735 4785 Enterprises (Petitioner) E -2401 800 700 2835 M/s. Durga C -5000 1700 7600 Enterprises (Respondent No. 5) E -4950 1800 6500 Term Tender No. 7/99 -2000/Edd -II Badaun M/sShanti C 1639 605 435 2832 Enterprises (petitioner) E -1407 600 449 1678 M/sDurga C -5000 1700 7600 Enterprises (Respondent No. 5) E -4950 1800 6500
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that so far as Tender No. T -9 is concerned, the rates quoted by the petitioner with regard to 11 K.Y line, L.T. line and T/FDP were lower than that of Respondent No. 5, yet his tender was not accepted. With regard to T -6 it is urged that the rates offered by the petitioner were very much lower than that offered by Respondent No. 5. Similarly with regard to T -7 it is urged that the rates offered by petitioner were almost one third of the rates offered by Respondent No. 5. It is thus urged that the rates for various items of work offered by the petitioner being much lower than that of Respondent No. 5, the Executive Engineer concerned com ­mitted gross illegality and showed undue favour in awarding contract to Respon ­dent No. 5.;