- (1.) Both the appeals having been preferred against a common order dated 5.7.2010, passed by the learned Singh Judge In W.P.(C) No. 202 of 2010, they are being disposed of together by a common order.
(2.) In I.P.A. No. 284 of 2010, the Petitioner/Appellant is a firm, which has filed tender. The argument before us is that the tender filed by it was defective and, therefore, it deserved to be rejected. The further argument of the Petitioner/Appellant is that in any case when the Petitioner?s tender was required to be rejected, it could not have been awarded a contract for a place for which he did not Kid. On these counts, the writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge of this Court ha? not countenanced the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and has rejected the writ petition. Same arguments have been repeated before us.
(3.) We find that in Column No. 5, the petitioner/appellant has sought allotment of R.R. Simdega West (E). There is a specific mention of this particular region. The Petitioner?s tender was the highest amount for this region, therefore, the. Petitioner/Appellant was awarded the contract. In that view of the matter, it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner/Appellant that since there were certain wrong entries in the tender form, therefore, tender could not have been awarded to it. The premises on which the argument is based is misleading and misconceived. If the tender form has been wrongly filled up by the Petitioner and it has left scope for arguing after filing of the tender, then such a scope have much to be desired on behalf of tie Petitioner. Clause 15 of the departmental regulation reads as under: Unit number is not entered in the tender form according to provincial range/part provincial range, then submission in that regard will be considered in favour of provincial range/part provincial range. From the aforesaid, it is clear that it permits the department to make allotment for the mentioned territory.;