Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred to challenge the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the court of Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 14/08 by which the trial court granted injunction order against giving work to the appellant Krishna Kumar. The Works in question are in relation to work out of package for which notices inviting tenders No. 28 /PMGSY/20072008 was issued on 4.2.2007.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he was competitive bidder for the work in question and as the officers of the respondent had grudge against the plaintiff -respondent, therefore, with malafide intention and to blame respondent -plaintiff, the tender of the appellant -defendant No. 4 was accepted even when the appellant defendants tender was liable for rejection because of the reason that the tender documents were incomplete as the requisite price for the five years maintenance of the work was not mentioned by the defendant -appellant in the tender documents and some of the pages of tender document were not signed by him and further the offer was non -responsive. The trial court after considering Conditions No. 25.1, 25.2, 25.3 as well as Clause 8.3, held that the tender document of the appellant -defendant No. 4 was incomplete, as he did not give any rates for the five years maintenance and did not sign that part of the document and, therefore, the tender document was nonresponsive and since it has not been signed, therefore, it was liable to be rejected as per Clause 25.1, 25.2 and 25.3 of the conditions of the tender. The trial court rejected the contention of the State as well as the rival contractor that if any amount is not mentioned in the document for any work, then that work cost is required to be treated included in the rates mentioned by the contractor for whole of the work. The learned trial court also was of the view that contention of the defendant -appellant that main work in the contract was construction of the roads and was not its maintenance, also cannot be accepted. The plaintiff in addition to relief of prohibitory injunction against the respondent, sought mandatory injunction in its favour for grant of work order in his favour. However, the trial court was of the view that no case is made out by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 for issuing work order in his favour by interim order. In view of the above reasons, the trial court granted the only prohibitory injunction in favour of respondent -plaintiff and refused mandatory injunction to the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendant -contractor has preferred Appeal No. 611/08, whereas the State has preferred Appeal No. 696/08 to challenge the said order dated 3.5.2008.;