WP(C) 2897/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Mr. R. Tanti, learned Counsel appearing for the State Transport Department submi ts that the bid of the petitioner at Rs.8,50,500/- was not the highest bid and i n fact the bid of the private respondent No.5 at Rs.7,30,000/- + offer for staff salary of Rs.2,00,000/- was the highest bid. The Departmental Counsel further s ubmits that the earnest money accompanying the bid of the petitioner did not cor respond to 5% of the quoted amount as he has deposited Rs.25,000/- only as earne st money. It is seen from the NIT dated 14.12.2009 of the Executive Engineer, IWT that bid s are to be given exclusive of staff salary and in this case the petitioner had not given his bid exclusive of staff salary. Furthermore, if the staff salary of fered by the respondent No.5 is taken into account, his bid at Rs.9,30,000/-, be comes higher than the bid offered by the petitioner. The records produced by Mr. Tanti shows that the petitioners had deposit ed only Rs.25,000/- as earnest money, which is less than 5% of the bid quoted by him. Therefore the bid of the petitioner is inconsistent with the requirement o f Clause(5) of the Tender Notice. In view of above, I see no infirmity in the order dated 22.3.2010, where by settlement of Hohuwa - Bhogdia -Sambaria - Directory -Majortoop (Alikash)- No wbhaja - Dekuradia - Kalartoop - Saralpara - Kalapani (Club Basis) Ferry Service was granted to the respondent No.5 Lakhi Kanta Roy at his highest bid. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.