IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1938 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.2.2010 M/s Tej Ram Filling Station. -----Petitioner. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of orders dated 10.1.2009 and 28.10.2009, Annexures P-8 and P-15 respectively, whereby tender of the petitioner for transportation of petroleum products from the depots of the Indian Oil Corporation to petrol pump/outlet of the petitioner was rejected. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Notice, inviting tender, Annexure P-1, the petitioner submitted its bid, which was rejected on the ground that after quoting the rates in words, word ‘Paisa’ was mentioned. The petitioner clarified that rate quoted in figure i.e. ‘Rs.74.00/KL’ was correct and rate in CWP No.1938 of 2010 words ‘Rs. Seventy four Paisa per KL’, be read accordingly, but this clarification was not accepted and tender of the petitioner was rejected. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the rate was meant to be Rs.74 per KL but word ‘paisa’ was a typing error. It was well known that the rate could not have been Rs.74 Paisa per KL. It could have been only Rs.74/KL and in such circumstances, the clarification should have been allowed. 5. This prayer is opposed on behalf of the respondents, on the ground that tender conditions have to be strictly construed and if there was any mistake, the tender had to be rejected. 6. We are of the view that though tender conditions have to be followed strictly and negligence can provide no justification for altering the rate quoted, in an exceptional case, genuine arithmatical error may be allowed to be corrected where a person may have acted promptly to clarify the error. Reference may be made observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court to this effect in W.B. State Electricity Board v. Palel Engg. Col. Ltd. 2001(2) SCC 451 (para 26 & 27). Thus, the matter need to be looked into afresh by the concerned authority. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the concerned authority to take fresh view in the matter within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2 CWP No.1938 of 2010 8. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 18, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3