IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH Writ Petitiontcmo. C9! ofzoo7 PETITI - / Waidhan Engineering and Industries Private Limited, A Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Through its Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Registered Office: Udyog Deep, Industrial Area, Plot No.54 86 56, P.O.: Waidhan, District: Sidhi (M.P.) — Versus — ESPONDENTS: é 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through its Secretary, C.S.E.B., Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Hasdeo Thermal Power Station, C.S.E.B., Korba West, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. / 3. Superintending Engineer (P 85 W), Hasdeo Thermal Power Station, C.S.E.B., Korba West, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. / 4. Thejo Engineering 85 Services Private Limited, Chennai, Through its Branch Manager At 448 Indra complex, Transport Nagar Korba, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITIWRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ANDIOR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ONER: R / XI-HC—22 Division Bench : Hon’ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava i&_ Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra‘ JJ 3-1 -2007 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Sr. Jaiswal, counsel for respondents Ncne for respondent No.4 Heard. case in brief is that respondents No.2‘& 3 The factual matrix of the floated a tender bearing No.1021 dated 22-07-2005 for belt jointing replacement, rubber lagging on iAdvocate with Shri BD. Guru & Shri S.R.J. No.1, 2 8: 3 on advance copy. s “we... we“.”e ..,m.-m.-n - “"A- conveyor pullies and other works, pureuant to which the petitioner and resp‘andent No.4 submitted their bids. The total estimated value of the work is oi Rs. 2.00 Crores at the existing rates. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were found technically fit and suitable for execution of the work in techno commercial evaluation by the ofncial respondents. After evaluation oi the techno commercial bid and finding the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 technically suitable, respondent No.3 cailed petitioner as well as respondent No.4 for opening of price bid on 06-11-2006. Under'the terms aiid conditions of the tender specification, a tenderer was required to submit price bid the tenderer was requir figures. When the price bid was the parties, it was found that respondent No.4 has submitted his price bid in duplicate by quoting different rates in original and duplicate. The price bid (loaded) his price bid in three bid system and in the ed to quote his prices in words as weil as in opened on 06-1 1-2008 in presence of both XI-HC-22 WW mm for item Ne.1(C) jointing of 1200 respondent No.4 has quoted Rs same copy, he has quoted Rs.2 has mentioned Rs.2,950/- per j< variation in the rates, words and price bid for item No.1(C) wz respondents instead of rejectin Rst2,500/~ per joint as qunted i: No.1(C). The petitioner having entitled to get the work. Learned counsel for the pr 14 of instructions to the tenders the respondent No.4 was not ent per joint suffers from defect of Rs.2,950/— and on the other plat He further contended that if bid i instructions is thrown out only r bid i.e. for Rs.2,570/— was requir the instructions read as below : “14. Mistakes in Bic any grounds such mis—understanding eti “17. Ambiguities in of ambiguious or sr conditions in the bi advantageous to the reference to‘the‘tende mm wide belt by cold vuicanizing process, 1950!— per joint in figures whereas in the ,5OOI- per joint in words, in other copy he rint in words and figures both. As there is figures, by respondent No.4, as such, his is liable to be rejected, but the officiai 3 the bids of respondent No.4 accepted ,y respondent No.4 as a valid bid for item quoted his rate Rs.2,570i— per joint was atitioner l contended that according to clause ‘rs l published by respondent—Board in NIT, 1 a,mam end.““ t. Ly“-.. .w.mvvww - tied to get the work. His bid for Rs.2,500/- variation as he at one place quoted rate e contrary to it has mentioned Rs.2,500l—. ff respondent No.4, which is in viotation of >etitioner remain in the field, therefore, his ed to be accepted. Clauses 14 and 17 of is : Any variation in rates on as mistakes, overwriting, :. wili not be aiiowed.“ conditions of bids : ln case zif contradictory rates/terms! :l, interpretation as may be Board may be taken Without ief (metres) x t; XI—HC-22 \ Hem it is as crystal as clear that respondent No.4, accsrding to petitioner himself, has quoted N10 rates one is Rs.2,950./— and another Rs.2,500l— that means both the rates are self contradictory and according to clause 17 the rate Rs.2‘500/- was advantageous to the Board, therefore, the Board has accepted it, in View of clause 17, to challenge the act of official respondents, the petitioner has nc locusetandi, even no prejudice has been caused by the Board, to the petitioner in accepting the rate of respondent No.4, which is lowest and advanta geous to them. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition, so as to call for any interference by the Court, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. l Sdl- s ”am.” “gm“u .....,._-a-_t __ _ Consequently,w .1 or 2007 sande/deggsedi m‘m.,A 2 I . . Sdl- Dhtrendra Mlshra‘ V.K.Shrivastava Judge Judge (deattam