'92.i'99i 'ON40^JOj psje|08p seM jeuoiijied stf} ^o 8}BJ pue (f/cj sjnxsuu^ '.'iVW aoffou japue} 34} ^o suu©}jsd se y4!-ioi|ine }ue(edLuoo eq} ejpjeq 11.0Z' I'Z uo Jspus} 514 psujujqns jeuo!}.q8d eq} •oI.OZZ 1.'S t PStBp eoiiou jspue} punoj }sjy ey} 0} esuodsej ui )ei)} sj jeuogiied stj} p eoueASUQ •g •Unoo siijt Aq peAe}s ueaq sei) j, lOS'S't?' .i<y pe|npetj3s )0i 8Aoqe eifl 0} pedssj 4}iM uogone 'ttOZ'S'e psiep -ispJo uiystU! epiA •p9}!AUjueeq seq »o| SAOqe Sij} jo^ JSpue} iise.y Aqejaym sispjo pue suojpe tuenbssqhs pue (g/d ejnxsuuv) K.OZ'Z'I.I. patBpeoffou jspus} p Buiijsenb JQ} psAejd OS[B seq jsuoBiied sqj. •pe|]eoueo useq sey gg/ pue g^/ 'gsz 'I.SZ'ON W p tueiuto||e Aqej8l|M ()./ej 3Jnx9uuv)K.OZ'Z'01. P8}ep )./c) ejnxsuuyp jspjo gifl epjse Bujnes joj psAejd seij jeuoitBad sij) 'uoiBsd IUM sit)} Ag f 'Bjqsiirti ejpuajjtia jsd (K.OZ'WBWi^l.) aaaaoivao •jndjey •p»-]uoRBjspej -d'j'lftl'0'0 "Q'lAI '4Bu!S >IV'Jra WV* £1?Z 'ON Stuepuodsej jo^ |esunoo 'eqeMeyqoex •9-v •j|rt| •ste»S84»Jo.»eieooApv •^og) 'osa •9-N'n "JW •J8UO!}l}8d8l)tJOj|eSUn03'BlUJBl|9if9®}B.Iel'W :}uesejd (90) jndiey 'isejoj p jo^BAjesuoQ p eoij(0 '8|3jj0 jndiey 'jsBeueiAi lejsuso Buiiepiyo f tsejoj yi ja(BAJSsuoo •£ jndrey 'mBe^ jeijuetig 'qipjBiueqx 'qnio dlA -ie®N 's^sg dlA 'SZ . -V 'wtoajiQ BuiBeueiAI eijl yBnojiji 'patiuin uogejspej sAjiejsdooo ~ '(}Uetudo|SAea 1? Bujpeji)'sonp6jc| }sajoj joUjiAi e»e»s qjeBsiueiiyo •z (00) jndiey 'ueMeyg SXQ 'iuetupedsa }SSJQJ '/jBiejosg i|Bnojl|i IyjeBs!BEt|L|3 jo e}B}9 'i. quepupdsey -snsjsA- (g>0) jndreypuisiQ'.indiea 'uepiBiAi ei|pueqfey 'jesuBcl eui)K|3 'jooy }sjy 'Z-t-l o/y '|e»BjBv |eq nljqiueqs yyg °/S 'sjesA 9£ inoqe peBy '|emej8v AefjA : jeuojued tlOZlo 6fr6 -ON (3) uojwsd IUM jT •jB)|BJpueyo •N-y UMS aiq.uoH •8 •BjysiiAi BJpuaijija !Ji<Ssi<i<u<iH :T(3uagTi6jspija andsviia iv HavosiiivHHo do lynoo HOIH ^ ;<^s^ 1 ^ -'Tt-- 781, 785 and 789 along with rates of other tenderers. The' petitioner has submitted his rateat Rs.2,188/- for the Lot No.785. At the time of opening tender, the same was announced as 2,188. After all level of scrutiny on 12.1.2011, results were opened by respondent No.2 and petitioner was declared successful bidder for Lots No. 766, 776, 781 and 789, whereas for Lot No. 785, M/s Rameez Enterprises was declared successful. No one, includir®the petitioner, raised any objection regarding the above result. During scrutiny, the rate quoted by the petitioner for Lot No.785 was found Rs.2,188/-. However, on or about 22.1.2011, respondent No.2 vide notice dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P/6) alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, the rate quoted against Lot No.785 was altered to Rs.2,488/- after opening of the tender, whereas the rate offered by the petitioner was Rs.2,188/-. The aforesaid fabrieation in the offer was made with the connivance of the petitioner. By this notice, it was further proposed as to why as a penal measure, no formal order of allotment should be issued in your favour for Lots No. 766, 776, 781 and 789 atlotted to you. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied any role in fabrication in all the tender forms submitted by him. However, by the impugned order, allotment for the aforesaid lots has been cancelled vide Annexure P/1 and fresh tender forthe aforesaid lots has been issued videAnnexure P/2. 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that th6 petitioner submitted his offer for Lot No.785 at Rs.2,188/-. Even after scrutiny, the rate was found as Rs.2,188/-. Thereafter, result was declared on 22.1.2011 without any protest or objection.andthe lotwasallotted in favour of M/s Rameez Enterprises. Since the petitioner did not object at the time of opening of tender when the rates quoted by different bidders were announced and he did not object when the offer of M/s Rameez Enterprises being highest was finalized, any inference drawn by the respondent authorities that the petitioner was responsible for fabrication through overwriting in the tender forms submitted by him with the connivance of employees of the Federation, is without any basis and no evidence has been collected to establish that the aforesaid fabrication was done by any particular employee/officer ofthe respondent Federation with the connivance of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, learned. E)y. Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Singh, M.D., C.G.M.F.P. Federation Ltd., Raipur, would argue that at the time of checking tender of this petitioner in the Federation Office, it was foynd that the rate proposed for Lot No.785 wasat .111.1 j[l ^ _.^1i"'v^^ 'y^-"- :'^f,» •^••"••^•s. }l4 ,y t '•S;. ^. Rs.2,488/- and there wasa minute overwriting in the tender form. However, after comparing it with the recorded rate in the audio cassette, it was found that the earlier figure quoted by the petitioner was Rs.2,188/- for Lot No.785. Thereafter, result was declared and M/s Rameez Enterprises was allotted Lot No.785 on the basis of highest rate of Rs.2,391/- quoted by him. Had the respondents not compared the flgures at the tims of final checking, the lot would have been allotted to the petitioner. However, idBntity of the employees of the respondent-Federation could not be established as tender documents are processed byseveral emptoyees and it was not possible to pinpoint any individual employee. Nev'erthieless, with the present system of allotment of Tendu Patta lot through tender, the lot in question would have been altotted to the petitioner but for discoyery of the forgery at the time of final checking as the petitioner's capacity had not been exhausted by then. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties as atso the impugned order. • 6. Indisputably, the tender documents are kept in the custody of officers of respondent No.2. On the first date of opening tenclera, rate of Rs.2,188/- quoted by the petitioner for Lot No.785 was announced and audio recording of the same was made. The offer of Rs.2,391/- of M/s Rameez Enterprises for Lot No. 785 was also announced. The petitioner did not protest the aforesaid announcement. The petitioner never ctaimed, at any stage, that he should have been declared highest bidder and allotment of Lot No. 785 be made rn his favour. The ofRcer responsible for conducting tender process, in whose custody tender papers submitted by the bidders are kept, has not been able to collect any evidence to establish that the aforesaid forgerywas done by a particular employee in connivahce with the petitioner. Inthese circumstances, the inference drawn by the authorities of respondent No.2, < that manipulation was done at the behest of the petitioner by one of their employees, is based on conjectures and surmises, and no such inference could have been drawn, particularly when the petitioner at no point of tlme claimed allotment of Lot No.785, either at the time of opening of the tenders or at the time whenthe lot was finally allotted to M/s Rameez Enterprises. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we areofthe opinion that penal action taken by the respondent authorities, vide Annexure P/1 canceling allotment of Lots No. 781, 789, 776 and 7% in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, ttie petition is altowed. The impugned UBiBaann.B—.aaaii.i—tsia—rt-S- : v— ^ l^ » ^' order of Annexure P/1 is set aside and consequently, the tender notice of Annexure P/2,so far as it relates to Lot No. 781, 789, 776 and 766, and action taken in pursuance thereof in respect of aforesaid lote, are atso set aside. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Ghandrakar Judse