- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 9th April, 2008. The Hon'ble First Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and held that while preparing the comparative statement of the credentials of the intending bidders, the Authorities due to an inadvertent slip did not record the financial structure as disclosed by the private respondent No. 4 and for such inadvertent slipping, the private respondent No. 4 cannot be made to suffer.
(2.) THE other point which has been urged before the Hon'ble First court by the writ petitioner that the private respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 2. 1 of the Tender document i. e. , the intended bidders were required to furnish the annual turn over for the last 5 years was also negated by the Hon'ble First Court. It is urged that the private respondent No. 4 has come into existence only 3 to 5 years prior to the issuance of the Tender notice, therefore, unable to produce papers relating to annual turn over for the last 5 years.
(3.) THE fact as has been noted that the representative of the writ petitioner signed the comparative statement upon perusal of its contents and no objections were raised by the said representative of the writ petitioner that the private respondent No. 4 was not eligible to participate in the tender process in te'rms of the notified eligibility criteria. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court held that the writ petitioner stood on fence and took a chance and after becoming unsuccessful turned around and challenged the selection process.;