M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Board.
(2.) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents not to negotiate or deal with any other person whose tender was not found valid on 10.12.2004 in relation to Tender Notice for sale of iron and steel scrap and further for a direction not to allot tender to any other person. Petitioner 'scase, inter alia, is that respondents published Tender Notice inviting Tender for sale of different articles including iron and steel scrap. As against SI No. 1 of the Tender Notice relating to the sale of iron and steel scrap due date of submission and opening of Tender was 10.12.2004. Tender was required to be submitted in two parts i.e. technical and price bid separately. Petitioner and several persons submitted their Tender and the technical bid of all the tenders were opened by the respondents in presence of representatives of the petitioner. Technical bid of four persons including the petitioner was found valid and in order. These four persons including the petitioner were informed by the respondents by letter dated 24.2.2005 to be present on 26.2.2005 in the Officer for opening of price bid for supply of 5000 M.T. of iron and steel scrap. It is contended by the petitioner that on 26.2.2005 price bid was opened and the price bid of the petitioner was found highest. In spite of opening of the price bid, respondents have not issued allotment letter in spite of several reminders given to the respondents. Surprisingly, petitioner learnt that respondents are negotiating the matter with some of the tenderers whose technical bid was not found in order on 10.12.2004. By filing amendment petition, petitioner brought some more facts on record. It is stated that after opening of the price bid on 26.2.2005, respondents acted arbitrarily by including the Tender of respondent No. 4 and issuing an allotment order.
(3.) RESPONDENTS filed a counter -affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner including other tenderes did not fulfil all the criteria as mentioned in the Tender Notice. However, in the interest of the Board it was decided to give a chance to all the fourteen tenderers who fulfill all the criteria. On 26.2.2005 when the price bid or respondent No. 4 was not opened, he made an application to the chairman of the respondent - Board alleging that although he had produced all the papers and fulfilled all the criteria but his price bid was not opened. The Chairman made a note on the application, endorsed to the Member (Finance) stating that when respondent No. 4 was eligible and if his financial bid was found to be highest then his case should also be considered. It is further stated that two other representations submitted by respondent No. 4 in pursuance of which an inquiry was made and the Chairman directed that in the interest of Board it get the best and highest price for the scrape being sold by them.;