WA 392/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4076/2010. The official respondents issued an advertisement on 18.5.2010 inviting tenders f or settlement of hats/markets under the jurisdiction of Bordoloni Anchalik Panch ayat. Tender papers were to be submitted on 11.6.2010 upto 2 P.M. The appellant as well as several others gave their bids in response to the Notic e Inviting Tender. After the bids were evaluated, it was found that Sunil Pegu ( Respondent No.1) was the highest bidder having given a bid of Rs.28,66,501/-. Ho wever, the official respondents accepted the bid of the 18th highest bidder name ly the appellant for an amount of Rs.20,61,990/-. Feeling aggrieved, Sunil Pegu preferred a writ petition, which was allowed by th e learned Single Judge and that is how the appellant is now before us. Before the learned Single Judge, it was noted that the reason why the bid of Sun il Pegu was rejected was because the number and date of the tender papers was no t mentioned by him in the bid form. It was contended by Sunil Pegu that this was not an essential requirement of the bid form. This contention was accepted by t he learned Single Judge and it was held that the rejection of the bid of Sunil P egu was incorrect and a fresh settlement should be made within seven days. We have gone through the bid form which has been annexed with the appeal papers and we find that it is a detailed form in which the name of the Goan Panchayat a s well as the name of the hat/market is indicated for which the tender papers we re required to be submitted. There is a reference (kept blank) in the tender for m to the tender notice and date, which is expected to be filled up by the tender ers. It is this portion of the bid form (unfilled/ blank), which was not filled up by Sunil Pegu, which resulted in the rejection of his bid. In our opinion, the particulars given in the tender form were sufficient to iden tify the purpose for which the bid was made namely the Gaon Panchayat as well as hat/market. Mere non-mentioning of the date and number of the advertisement in the tender papers in this particular case in our opinion does not make any mater ial difference in view of the fact that identification of the bid with the adver tisement is quite clear. We find that the rejection of the bid of Sunil Pegu on this ground is rather flimsy. We have also gone through the advertisement issued by the official respondents. The advertisement was not one for several hats/markets. The advertisement was fo r a particular hat/market and therefore, it was quite simple for the official re spondents to co-relate the tender form submitted by Sunil Pegu with the advertis ement. In fact, this was done by the official respondents, who even evaluated t he bid of Sunil Pegu, but it was only thereafter that they rejected it on the gr ound that the date and number of the advertisement was not mentioned. The official respondents were clearly able to link the tender papers and the adv ertisement. Hence, there was no confusion in the mind of the official respondent s in identification of the tender papers submitted by Sunil Pegu with the advert isement. We are of the view that under these circumstances, the requirement of mentioning the number and date of the advertisement in the tender form was not an essentia l requirement insofar as the present advertisement is concerned. Therefore, we a re in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that th e bid of Sunil Pegu was rejected on a flimsy ground. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ appeal. Accordingly, it is d ismissed.