- (1.) Respondent No. 2 had invited tenders for the purchase of 3663 PCC poles (subsequently altered to 6336 poles) through an advertisement in the press. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner-company along with 6 others, quoted their rates for the supply of 6336 poles in their respective tenders which were opened on 18.1.1993. Out of them the rates of the tenderers who had given the lowest rates are as under :- "1. M/s. Raju Construction Co. village Alipur (Ambala) (i) Rs. 767/- per pole for first 400 poles (ii) Rs. 792/- per pole for first 100 poles (iii) Rs. 815/- per pole for first 1000 poles (i) Rs. 836/- per pole for balance quantity 2. M/s. Haryana Concrete Products Ltd. (Hansi) Hissar (i) Rs. 756/- per pole for supplies meant for districts Hissar, Sirsa, Bhiwani, Jind and Rohtak. (ii) Rs. 763/- per pole for supplies meant for the Districts Rewari, Gurgaon, Mohindergarh, Faridabad and Sonepat. (iii) Rs. 825/- per pole for supplies meant for the District Ambala, Yamuna Nagar, Kurukshetra, Panipat, Karnal and Kaithal. 3. M/s. Espee Spum Pipe Co. Village Alipur (Ambala). (i) Rs. 755/- per pole for supplies required for districts Ambala, Yamuna, Nagar, Kurukshetra and Karnal. (ii) Rs. 764/- per pole for supplies required for districts Kaithal and Panipat. (iii) Rs. 830/- per pole for supplies required for districts Sonepat, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Rewari, Rohtak, Sirsa, Bhiwani, Jind and Hissar.
(2.) Respondent No. 3 submitted revised rates on 3.2.1993 and brought down the rates below the rates quoted by the petitioner-cum-firm, which were the lowest at the time of opening of the tenders on 18.1.1993. The revised rates quoted by respondent No. 3 are as under :- (i) Rs. 744/- per pole for the supplies required for District Ambala, Kurukshetra, Karnal, Yamunanagar and Jagadhri. (ii) Rs. 751/- per pole for the Districts of Kaithal and Panipat. (iii) Rs. 829/- per pole for the Districts in Haryana. Respondent No. 2 accepted the revised tender submitted by respondent No. 3 and placed orders for the supply of poles with respondent No. 3.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the interest of justice the petitioner-company should have been granted equal opportunity to submit revised tender but in the instant case there is complete departure from established norms. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had argued that the petitioner-firm had offered the lowest tender as compared to the other tenders and in that situation there was no justification with the respondent-authorities to permit any of the renderers to submit revised rates much less without affording corresponding opportunity to the petitioner-firm which had quoted the lowest rates. Thus, the respondent had acted in an arbitrary manner which is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.;