Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner for lifting of waste and sweeping papers in pursuance of tender notice being Administration (AE)/Adv./Tender Notice/23 dated 12.04.2017 and also for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to declare the petitioner as a successful bidder.
(2.) The factual background of the case is that the respondent no. 3-Deputy Accountant General (Administration) floated a tender notice on 10.04.2017 for auction sale of waste papers (estimated quantity 3048 kg) and sweeping papers (estimated quantity 1058 kg) and the interested bidders were asked to submit tender in sealed cover till 20.04.2017. The said tender notice was published in the newspapers vide Administration (AE)/Adv. T.N./23 dated 104.2017, whereby the interested persons were advised to visit in the website of the respondents for perusal of the terms and conditions of the tender and to deposit demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- as security deposit in favour of the Pay and Account Officer (Audit) Ranchi. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted tender with requisite demand draft of Rs. 25000/- and quoted lumpsum value Rs. 1,66,192/-against the purchase of the aforesaid waste and sweeping papers. However, the petitioner subsequently came to know that the said work has not been allotted to it and thereafter it made representation to the respondent authority claiming that it being the highest bidder should be awarded the aforesaid work.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the writ petition is maintainable even in the contractual matters if the action of the respondents is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in the breach of public law or vitiated by malafide or ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the estimated quantity for lifting of waste paper was 3048 kg and sweeping paper was 1058 kg, thus total expected quantity was 4106 kg and the petitioner quoted the lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,66,192/- which was the highest bid amongst all the tenderers. However, the respondent authority without any cogent reason and negotiation granted relaxation in tender notice despite the fact that the tender notice did not permit any relaxation to a bidder who has not quoted higher rate in comparison to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent authority has not followed the established procedure by not entering into negotiation with the petitioner before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. It is further submitted that the petitioner being the highest bidder deserves the contract to be awarded in its favour.;