^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA W.P.fCl N0.1988/2011 PETITfONER RESPONDENTS 1 Mohan Feeds Chemicals Pyt. Ltd. Sector-A, industriai Estate, Urla, Raipur, Through its Managing Director, Shri C.M. Mathur, S/o Shri K.L. Mathur, aged about 62 years, R/o106/3, Geetanjali Housing Society, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through ; The Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Fisheries Chhattisgarh, Teiibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Agarwai Trading Company, Through its Partner Sanjay Agarwal Ist Fioor, Maa Annapurna Complex, Banjari Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICE226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OMNDIA Appearance: Mr. P.K. Patankar, Counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2 on advance copy. Mr. K^hitij Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.3 on advance copy. ifcai1 ...^ W.P.(C) N0.1988/2011 <7 The foilowing Kumar Sinha. J. ORAL ORDER (29.09.2011) order of the Court was passed by Heard. The petitioner has challenged the validity of communication dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure P/5), whereby, it was communicated to the petitioner that the tender submitted by it for supply of fish feed has been rejected by the concerned authorities, as there was some deficiency in the technical bid offered by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 published N.I.T. dated 04.03.2011 for supply of fish feed. Under Condition No.25 of the tender, it was directed that the offer shall be made by submitting two envelopes, one containing technical bid and the other cpntaining price bid. If a tenderer qualifies in technical bid, then only, his price bid was to be opened. The petitioner, though submitted both the envelopes i.e. technical bid and price bid, but when its technical bid was opened, it was found that it was not containing technical proposal form (Annexure P/3), therefore, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was not proper. His submission is that the technical proposal Torm was kept in the price bid of the petitioner; therefore, it was not a case that the technical proposal form was not at all Tilled, but it was a case that technical proposal form was wrongly kept in the price bid i.e. the second envelope. The contents of the technica! proposal form would show that it is a kind of appiication containing all details relating to the offer made by a party. There are various blank spaces in the co W.P.(C) N0.1988/2011 form, which has to be filled by the party making offer and there is also a space for signature of the party or the authorized signatory of the party who is making an offer in the form of technical bid. Unless that offer is there in the technical bid, the technical bid, in any manner, cannot be held to be a proper bid. We are of the view that the technical bid shall be held to be complete and proper only if it also contains technical proposal form. If the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on this ground, the rejection cannot be hetd to be illegal or improper. The respondents have brought ail these facts by filing an affidavit in this regard, which has not been controverted by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge shyna ^~^. g^- :y Sd/- R-S.Sharma Judge