St HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR Divjsionaench Coram: - Hon'ble ShrS Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon'bie Shri IVianindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(Q No.26©2of 20jfl M/s. Shri Sai Udyog, Podi Uproda, District- Korba, (Chhattisgarh) Through its proprietor - Smt. Monika Miftai, W/o. Shri Durga Prasad Agrawal, aged about 29 years, resident of House No.J-4, AgrawaS Sodety, Ring Road No.1, Raipura, Raspur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Versus The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State industrial Development Corporation Limlted, L!C Campus, Pandri, Raipur (CG) i/C Marketing-1, Chhattisgarh State Industriai Development Corporation Limsted, LIC Campus, Pandri, Raipur (CG) Vakrangi Fencing Poie, Bemetara, District-Durg, through its proprietor Shri Satish Sharma, S/o. Shri Amba LaS Sharma, aged about 27 years, resident of Ward No.1, Plkrl, Bemetara, District-Durg (CG) DA/RiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDIA] Present: - Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsei for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 9th June, 2010) S Per Manindra Fvlohan Shrivasfcava. J. Heard. 2. Petitioner has preferred, this petition aggrieved by communication dated 4/6/2010(Annexure P-1)issuedbyrespondentNo.2 whereby rate for RCC Fencing pole of 2 metres iength has been fixed at Rs.140/- per RCC poie, Facts giving rise to this petition are that a tender notice was issued on 15/03/10 inviting tender for rate contract from registered manufacturers or authorised agents for suppiy of various items inciuding RCC Fencing poles. Tenders were required to be . ^w"^!^ /"/^ f&^'^s/ ^y v^^^'' ^ submitted iatest by 19/04/2010. in response to the tender notice, petitloner as weii as other manufacturers or their agents submitted tenders offering their rate for suppiy of RCC Fencing poie. According to the petitioner, the whoie exercise is for the purposes of fixing the rate and entering into rate contract with the manufacturers who in the case of demand for supply wiii be supplying fencing pole of different iength on the rate fixed under the rate contract. It isthe case of the petitioner that the lowest of the rate offered by ail the tenderers is finaiised as the rate of suppiy of particular item under the rate contract. One Vakrangi Fencing pole, one of the tenderers quoted its prices for poles of different length. For one unit pole of 2.0 metres, he offered Rs.140/- per unjt. As that was found to be the iowest rate offered by the tenderer, the respondent authorities by impugned communication dated 04/06/10 informed the petitioner that he may submit his revised offer at the rate which has been preferred as per Annexure-A enciosed with the comrnunication. 3. The aforesaid communication has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this petition on the submission that an abnormaliy iow rate of Rs.140/- in respect of RCC Fencing poje of 2 metres was quoted by one ofthe tenderer nameSy Vakrangi Fencing poie, Bemetara which was an jnadvertent act on their part and Infact it was a mere typographical error. it is further submitted that it was never the intention of the said pariy to submit such a low rate for the iongest iength of pole of 2 metres when rate quoted for smalier length of 1.6 metres and 1.8 metres were on higher side. Leamed counsel for the petitioner by refemng to charts mentioned in paras 8.7 and 8.8 of the petition sought to demonstrate that quoting Rs.140/- as the rate for pole of 2 metres length was a typographicai mistake whiie submission of tenders and the same was required to be corrected. A representation has been submitted to the authorities by number of tenderers/manufacturers on 7/6/10 for correction of the rate for the purpose of rate contract of supply of poles but no '^ ,: t^.. g '^N^, ^^.^- c '^."^'/; action has been taken. 33 4. There is nothing on record to show that one of the tenderer nameiy Vakrangi Fencing pole, Bemetara ever submitted before the authorities that the rate was wrongiy quoted by it. Though the petitioner has piaced on record a representation dated 7/6/10 (Annexure A-5) which contains signature of varioustenderers/poje manufacturers, the said Vakrangi Fencing pole, Bemetara has not joined them. The aforesaid tenderer has not raised any claim before the respondents for modifying his offer on any such stated ground of inadvertent mistake/typographicaj error in the offer made by hjm. {t is petitioner's own case that respondent authority approved lowest of the rates offered by tenderers for the purposes of entering into rate contract. The petitioner therefore wouid not have any iocai standi to object to the action on the part of respondents, particuiariy when the aforesaid tenderer, Vakrangj Fencing poie has not raised any objeetion in that regard. Moreover, taking into consideration the iowest rate offered by one of the tenderer, respondents gave an opportunity to the petitioner to revise h»s offer. if the petitioner feels that the said rate is not feasibie, he may not enter into the rate contract but the petitioner has no legally enforceabie right to compel respondents to enter into the rate contract witti hjm on the rates quoted by the petitioner. No such direction can be issued by this Court to respondents to necessariiy fix the rate at Rs.161/- per unit for 2 metres iength of RCC Fencing poie to facilitate rate contract with the petitioner. The petition is misconceived and is accordingly liabie to be dismissed. This petition is therefore summarily dismissed without notice to respondents. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Dyypli