- (1.) Heard.
(2.) Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that by mistake, the amount offered could not be filled up in column 8 and 9 of the Tender document but it was mentioned clearly on the next page. He further submitted that Petitioner offered Rs. 1,85,786.00, whereas Respondent No. 3 M/s Aman Construction offered Rs. 1,53,000.00 and therefore the Respondents should have allowed the Petitioner to mention the amount in column 8 and 9.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the Respondents submitted that the concerned authorities put their signatures on the tender form near column 8 and 9; and that it is not known when the Petitioner mentioned the amount offered by it, on the next page. It is further submitted that Petitioner has been taking part in such tender and he knows fully well where the amount offered is to be mentioned. It is further submitted that such tenders are floated for a short period of three months and Respondent No. 3 has already been given the work. Counsel for the Respondents relied on the order dated 10.1.2011, passed in L.P.A. No. 284 of 2010 with analogous cases.;