IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 14432 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.10.2009. M/s Labhu Ram Khushi Ram ......Petitioner Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 21.8.2009, Annexure P-5, rejecting tender of the petitioner without consideration. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it was allotted retail outlet of petrol pump. Tenders were invited on 25.7.2008 for transportation of petroleum products from the source of supply to its petrol pump. The petitioner gave its bid which was lowest but the same was rejected on the ground that the rate was mentioned only in figures and not in words. Against the said rejection, the petitioner represented by way of Legal Notice dated 22.1.2009, Annexure P-2, followed by further representation, relying upon judgment of this Court dated 9.7.2009 M/s Baleem Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corporation and another in C.W.P. No. 1442 of 2009. Respondent No.1 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that order in M/s Baleem Filling Station, supra, could not be applied to the case of the petitioner. 3. In the reply, respondents have justified the impugned order on the ground that once there was a violation of conditions of the tender, the bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. C.W.P.No. 14432 of 2009 [2] 5. It has not been disputed that only defect in the tender was not mentioning the bid in words while mentioning the same in figures. Considering this aspect, it was observed in M/s Baleem Filling Station (supra): “ We are of the view that even though rate has not been mentioned in words, the fact remains that the rate quoted by the petitioner was clearly spelt out in figures and was lowest. Without disturbing the contract already awarded, the petitioner could be considered for the award of transport contract for transporting its own load requirement on L-1 rates.” 6. The above observation fully applies to the present case. It is not disputed that after the order was passed in M/s Baleem Filling Station, tender of the petitioner therein was accepted. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, having regard to the observations made in the order of this Court in M/s Baleem Filling Station, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) October 5, 2009 JUDGE raghav