- (1.) Mr. Jagannath Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the decision making process was not proper. He submitted that the bids were opened after about six months from the fixed date without informing the petitioner; the petitioner was a lowest tenderer and if petitioner did not qualify in the technical bid, the same should have been returned to it immediately and there was no occasion for the respondents to inform the petitioner on 15.3.2010 to extend the Bank Guarantee.
(2.) It appears from the minutes of meeting of the Departmental Tender Committee held on 20.3.2010 that the technical bids of the petitioner and Respondent No. 7- Sri Awantika Contractors (I) Ltd. were opened earlier, but the comparative statement could not be prepared in the matter and the same could not be processed further as the Model Election Code of Conduct was made applicable. When the technical bids were compared, petitioner did not qualify, whereas respondent No. 7 qualified in technical bid. Accordingly, a notice dated 21.3.2010 was issued to respondent No. 7 for opening financial bid. As the petitioner did not qualify in the technical bid, he cannot raise the said objections. It is not the case of the petitioner that it was disqualified in arbitrary manner. It appears that petitioner did not furnish the required PAN Number, Sales Tax Clearance, Labour Licence and the security amount was also not pledged, as required.
(3.) After hearing, Mr. Singh and going through the records, I do not find any arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision making process.;