C.W.P. No. 2307 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2307 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.8.2008 Shiv Shambhu Contractor, Ward No. 4-A, House No.5, Dharampura Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur. ..Petitioner. Vs. The Food Corporation of India and others. ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as Regular Transport Contractor for Ahmedgarh and further for direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to re-invite the tender for Transport Contract for Ahmedgarh Centre. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that respondent No.1- Food Corporation of India invited tender for appointment of Regular Transport Contractor for Ahmedgarh Centre. The last date for filing the tender was 15.11.2007. The tender was to be in two parts – technical bid and the price bid. The technical bid was to be opened at 2.30 P.M. In the technical bid, the petitioner along with respondent No.4 and one Shri Ashok Kumar son of Bodh Raj were successful. After opening the price bid, the tender was awarded to respondent No.4 being the lowest. It is against this action of the official respondents that the petitioner is aggrieved of. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of opening of price bid, the petitioner was required to be C.W.P. No. 2307 of 2008 [ 2] called. As the official respondents have failed to intimate the petitioner for opening of the price bid, the whole process is vitiated and accordingly, the award of contract in favour of respondent No.4 be set aside and the same be re-advertised. Learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that in terms of Clause 8 of the Model Tender Form, it is no where required that the tenderers were to be informed or invited for opening the price bid. Still as the petitioner was one of the successful bidder in the technical evaluation, a telegram was sent to him on 25.1.2008 intimating that the price bid shall be opened on 28.1.2008 at 11.30 A.M. As opening of the bid was postponed, further intimation was also sent to the petitioner. He further submitted that after opening of price bid, the tender was awarded to respondent No.4, who was found to be the lowest. The rate quoted by respondent No.4 was 166% ASOR as against the rate quoted by the petitioner at 168% ASOR. In any case, when the tender has been allotted to the lowest bidder, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 18366 of 2007-- M/s Thandi & Co., VPO Rattewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr v. The Food Corporation of India and others, wherein under identical circumstances, the writ petition filed by an unsuccessful contractor was dismissed on 14.7.2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Clause 8 of the Model Tender Form clearly provides that the tenderers were at liberty to be present either in person or through an authorised representative at the time of opening of the tenders. No doubt, the petitioner along with respondent No.4 and Shri Ashok Kumar were successful in the technical bid. However, when the price bid was opened, the petitioner was not present, but other two tenderers were present and after opening the price bid in their presence, it was found that the petitioner was not the lowest one. Rather, respondent No.4 had offered lower rates than the petitioner and as a result thereof, the tender was awarded to him. In view of this development, we do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if he was not present at the time of opening of price bid. Had the petitioner been ignored in spite of being the lowest and had there been any negotiation after opening of technical bid, the petitioner could C.W.P. No. 2307 of 2008 [ 3] raise the grievance about not being intimated for opening of the price bid. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge (Hemant Gupta) Judge 14.8.2008 mk