- (1.) The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for direction on 1st to 6th Respondents to re-decide and reconsider the bid submitted by the petitioner, as also the 7th and 8th Respondents for allotment of work order in relation to item Nos. 3 and 4 of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 2/2004-05. It was submitted that though the petitioner was the lowest bidder, but none of the works aforesaid has been given to it.
(2.) 1st to 6th Respondents have appeared. In their counter affidavit, they have given the details of manner in which tender papers were opened and the work order was allotted. According to them, there were four bidders, who were found eligible in respect to Item No. 3 and all of them have quoted same rate i.e. 15% below the estimated value. Out of four bidders, three were local. Out of them, the petitioner, one of the local bidders, submitted that they will complete the work within five months. Recommendation was, accordingly, made to the higher authority, but in view of the guidelines issued by the Vigilance Department that in case the two bidders having quoted same rate, and if both of them are local then it should be allotted to the bidder whose registration is earlier; the work order issued in favour of the 7th Respondent.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the work order was issued in favour of the 7th Respondent on 1st October, 2005, but he has not yet completed the job.;