Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 170 (ORI)

Mahendra Kumar Jena v. Union of India

2001-04-12

P.K.MISRA

body2001
JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The petitioner has prayed for a direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 accept the tender offered by the peti¬tioner and for quashing the decision of opposite parties 1 to 3 recommending for acceptance of the offer given by opposite party No. 5 in respect of the work relating to “Construction of Build¬ings for JNV at Dist-Kendrapara (Orissa) under Phase-A Plan, School-Building-1 No., Dormitories-2 Nos. for Boys and 1 No. for Girls, Principal Residence-1 No., Type-1 Qrs. 8 Nos. and Kitchen and Dining Hall-1 No.” The petitioner claims that though his offer was the lowest offer, opposite parties 1 to 4 have arbi¬trarily decided to award the work to opposite party No. 5. It has been asserted by the petitioner that he had given an offer of Rs. 3,78,56,672/- whereas opposite party No.5 had given an offer of Rs. 4,01,99,512/-. It is further submitted that after opening the bids, the petitioner was called upon to give clarification re¬garding his quotation in respect of one of the items of the Schedule of Quantities for which no rate had been indicated by the petitioner and the petitioner had given clarification stating that he was prepared to undertake the entire work at the price given by him. It has been asserted by the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid clarification, as indicated in Annexure-3, it was arbitrarily decided to award the work to opposite party No.5 ignoring the valid and lowest tender of the petitioner. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of oppo¬site parties 1 to 4 and also on behalf of opposite party No. 5 whose bid has been accepted by other opposite parties. It has been stated in the counter affidavit of opposite parties 1 to 4 that in the tender submitted by the petitioner, no amount had been quoted by the petitioner in respect of a major item, namely item No. 3.1.1 (R.C.C. work up to plinth level). On the other hand, opposite party No. 5 while giving his offer had quoted price of Rs. 25, 59,400/- for the aforesaid item. While consider¬ing, it was found that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,59,400/- is deducted from the total bid of opposite party No. 5, the amount of tender came to Rs. 3,76, 39, 642.85 paise, which was lower than the offer of petitioner. 25, 59,400/- for the aforesaid item. While consider¬ing, it was found that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,59,400/- is deducted from the total bid of opposite party No. 5, the amount of tender came to Rs. 3,76, 39, 642.85 paise, which was lower than the offer of petitioner. Similar stand has been taken by opposite party No. 5 in his separate counter affidavit. 3. The basis on which the offer of opposite party No. 5 has been accepted cannot be characterized as arbitrary. In fact, the bid of the petitioner was incomplete in the sense that he had not given any quotation towards cost of item No. 3.1.1. Only after the bids had been opened and prices were disclosed, the petition¬er came forward with an explanation that he was prepared to complete the entire work at the price quoted by him and he would not charge anything for the item No. 3.1.1. I do not think, such a subsequent offer could have been at all considered by opposite party 1 to 4. Since petitioner had not given any quotation for item No. 3.1.1. the method adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4 appears to be reasonable. So considered, the petitioner’s bid cannot be characterized as lowest bid. Since the decision of opposite parties 1 to 4 is not vitiated by any arbitrariness, there is no reason to set at naught the decision of opposite parties 1 to 4 to award the contract to opposite party No. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ appli¬cation, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.