- (1.) Mr. R. C. P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases submitted that a fresh tender has been wrongly called, as petitioner was lowest one (L 1) with regard to Dhanbad matter and with regard to Jamshedpur matter, the petitioner was the only tenderer.
(2.) Mr. Rohit Roy, appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was required to give break up of the rate quoted in terms of the Clause 3 (Cha) of the tender document, which Clause was stipulated in terms of Rule 18 of the notification dated 27 March 2009 issued by the department.
(3.) On this, Mr. Sinha submitted that the total rate including all the items as per Clause 3 (Cha) was quoted.;