- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing the Tender Notice No. 6/12 published on 15.7.2012 in Dainik Bhaskar, whereby the tender invited for transportation of foodgrains in the district of Gumla for the period ending on 31.3.2013. It appears that by Annexure-1 respondents issued Tender Notice No. 5/2012, for transportation of foodgrains in the district of Gumla for the period ending on 31.3.2013. Petitioner participated in the tender and he was found lowest bidder. Accordingly, vide Annexure-2, work allotted to the petitioner and he was asked to enter into an agreement within 15 days from the date of work order and deposit of security money. It is stated in the writ application that petitioner fell ill and was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, he requested the authority (respondents) to extend the period for execution of agreement. As requested by the petitioner, the respondents vide letter No. 252 dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure-4) extended the period for execution of the agreement till 27.7.2012. But in the meantime, on 15.7.2012, the respondent issued another tender notice for the same work. Accordingly, petitioner filed this application and prayed for quashing the aforesaid tender notice, because the same had been issued without cancelling the earlier tender notice and the work order issued in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) It further appears that during pendency of this writ application, the respondents by Annexure-9 forfeited the earnest money of the petitioner, which was deposited along with the tender papers and prohibited the petitioner from participating in any tender issued by the respondents upto the year 2014. Accordingly, an amendment application filed by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-9. It is stated in the amendment application that before issuing Annexure-9, neither any notice given to the petitioner, nor petitioner was heard.
(3.) Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since during the pendency of this application, the period of tender has already been elapsed, therefore, prayer made in the main writ application has become infructuous. Thus, the petitioner is not pressing the prayer made in main writ application. However, he submitted that the amendment application has already been allowed vide order dated 11.12.2012. He further submitted that aforesaid prayer of the petitioner still survives. Therefore, the petitioner pressing this application so far it relates to Annexure-9. Mr. Gadodia further submitted that admittedly Annexure-9 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the same is violative of principles of natural justice.;