SPARTAN CARRIERS PVT. LTD Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD
LAWS(JHAR)-2007-10-7
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on October 08,2007

Spartan Carriers Pvt. Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NARENDRA NATH TIWARI,J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner had initially prayed for a direction on he espondents to consider his bid and call the petitioner for negotiation in terms of Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) dated 21st April, 2007 and for quashing the impugned letter, whereby one M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju, Hazaribagh was called for negotiation. During the pendency of this writ petition, decision has been taken by the respondents to award contract in favour of M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency. In view of the charged circumstance, the petitioner by way of amendment has prayed for quashing the said decision.
(2.) THE said notice, inviting tender, was issued by the Central Coalfields Ltd. for allotment of work for transfer of coal by Tractor Pay Loader into Tractor Tipping Trucks from Pundi OC Surface Top and transportation to Rajrappa Washery Bunker/Stock after weighment at Rajrappa Washery Weighbridge. The petitioner had applied for allotment of the said work in prescribed form along with demand draft of Rs. 5,000/ - (rupees five thousand) Bank Guarantee and other documents, as required by the said NIT. According to the petitioner, the price bid of Part -II, which was in sealed cover, was opened on 15th June, 2007. The rates of the petitioner and that of M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju, Hajaribagh were same, but the petitioner was not called for negotiation. The petitioner came to know that M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju was declared 'L -1' and was called for negotiation. The petitioner learnt that its bid was rejected only due to an error in quoting the rate for two items. The petitioner inadvertently quoted its rate 111/11 against Clause 1 in place of 5/55 and against Clause 2, as 5/55 in place of 111/11.
(3.) PETITIONER contended that the respondents have not taken into consideration the rate quoted in totality. The entry of the rate(s) was inadvertently reversed. The same was a clerical error. It was not fair on the part of the respondents to reject the petitioner's bid on the said ground.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.