WP(C) 3861/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of its tender in response to the NIT da ted 29.05.2010 for supply of ALKALINE SIZING CHEMICALS WITH ALKYL KETENE DIMER ( AKD) on the ground that the submission thereof had not been in strict conformity with the requirements of Clause - 1 thereof, the petitioner is before this Cour t. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Agarwala, Ad vocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Hindustan Pa per Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter for short referred to as the Corporation). The recorded facts, in brief, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of the in stant petition are, that in terms of the aforementioned Clause of the NIT intend ing bidder were required to submit their tenders for the TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID a nd PRICE BID as Clause - 1.1 and 1.2 as hereunder: SUBMISSION OF BID: 1.1 Sealed and supper scribed bids, complete in all respect under two bid system (Techno-Commercial Bid & Price Bid) are to be submitted by the interested bidd ers, within the due date as mentioned in the NIB, addressed to: DY. GENERAL MANAGER (COM) NAGAON PAPER MILL, HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LIMITE D, KAGAJNAGAR DT. MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN 782 413 1.2 The Bid No., due date of opening and the name of the contract should clearly super scribed in the envelope at the time of submission. 1.3 Bids may be either sent through post in the aforementioned address or are to be dropped in the Bid Box kept in the PURCHASE Section of the mill. 1.4 Bids received after the due date and time of submission as stipulated in the NIB shall not be accepted for opening. 1.5 The Corporation shall not be responsible for any postal delay or any other d elay in receipt/submission of the bid within the due date and time. While submitting its tender carrying the above Bids, the petitioner in the bigge r envelope containing the two other envelopes for the TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID AND PRICE BID respectively did not mention the designation and address of the concer ned authority of the Corporation though, it referred to the Bid No. as well as d ue date of the opening thereof. The designation and the address as prescribed i n Clause- 1.1 & 1.2. of the NIT, however was super scribed on the envelope carry ing the TECHNO-COMMERCIAL Bid. The PRICE BID, however was also sans the above i nscription. The respondent-Corporation, though acknowledged the petitioner to b e one of the contending bidders on the basis of its tender so submitted having n oticed the contravention of Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the NIT as alluded hereinabove , declined to assess its TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID on merits. Resultantly, its PRIC E BID was also not opened. It was under these circumstances that the petitione r had approached this Court. The respondent-Corporation in its affidavit has re iterated the above deficiencies in the submission of the tender by the petitione r to justify its action. Whereas, Mr. Goswami, has urged that the underlying objective of 1.1 and 1.2 of the NIT being to identify the tenderer, the Corporation having readily able to d o so qua the petitioner bid, the impugned decision is per se arbitrary and illeg al. Mr. Goswami, has placed reliance on the decision of (2006) 11 SCC 548 B.S.N . JOSHI & SONS LTD. Versus NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS to brace up his p lea. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Goswami has contended that the stipulations contained in Clause 1 of the NIT being not inflexibly essential, any breach ther eof would not nullify a tender and as such the impugned action of the respondent -Corporation ought to be adjudged, unfair and unjust as well. Mr. Roy, in response, however has argued that the tender conditions having been prescribed for uniform application to all concerned, any violation thereof would entail the rejection of the tender and therefore the impugned action of the res pondent-Corporation is unassailable in law. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents annexed to the petition, this Court feels persua ded to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. A plain reading of the Clause 1 leaves this Court with the impression that the r equirements embodied therein are with the sole purpose of identifying the tender er and the bids on his/its behalf for TECHNICO-COMMERCIAL and PRICE components. Though, a tenderer is required to be extremely cautious in complying with the te rms and conditions of the NIT while submitting its tender it is no longer res in tegra that non-compliance of even an inessential stipulation in the NIT would no t inevitably result in the rejection thereof. As noticed hereinabove, though the petitioner had omitted to mention the designation as well as the address of the concerned authority of the respondent-Corporation on the bigger envelope carryi ng the two other envelopes containing the TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID and the PRICE BI D it inscribed in clear terms the Bid No. as well as the due date of the opening thereof, the envelope containing the TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID clearly carried the designation of the concerned authority and the address of the respondent-Corpora tion. As a matter of fact, from the endorsements on the said two envelopes as t he affidavit of the respondent-Corporation would testify, it had no difficulty i n identifying the petitioner’s tender, as well as the Bids found in the aforemen tioned two counts. In that view of the matter the omissions on the part of the petitioner, notwithstanding as noticed hereinabove, the purpose of the prescript ions of Clause 1 due to the same did not stand defeated thereby. In the above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court the digression on the part of the petitioner from the requirements of Clause 1 in the present fact s and circumstances ought not to be acted upon to reject its tender if it is oth erwise responsive in terms of the other clauses thereof. This view finds support from the determination made by the Apex Court in B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS (Supra). The respondent-Corporation would now take up for evaluation the petitioner’s t ender on its merit, however strictly in accordance with the covenants contained in the NIT. This direction is issued in the face of the order of status-quo tha t was passed on 02.07.2010 consequent whereupon the settlement process undertake n by the respondent-Corporation has remained stalled as on date. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.