JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J.- The petitioner, by invoking of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the action of respondent nos. 1 to 4 In ignoring her bid for running a Chemist’s shop on the ground-floor in Block-A of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, in preference to respondent nos.5 to 7. 2. The tender bid, which was initiated by virtue of notice dated 15.2.2007, elicited a response from a number of participants including the petitioner, who gave a bid of Rs.14.25 lacs per month as against the price bid of respondent nos. 5 to 7, which were Rs.13.80 lacs, Rs.13.25 lacs and Rs.9.51 lacs, respectively. 3. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, respondent nos. 1 to 4 had rejected the bid of the petitioner on the ground that one of the stipulations in the notice inviting tenders, which is as follows, was not complied with:- “7. Tender (s) must be accompanied with earnest money deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in the shape of deposit at call receipt or fixed deposit receipt (FDR) validity for one year, duly pledged in favour of Director Principal, GMCH drawn in any scheduled bank. 8. Tender without earnest money or short of it or not in specified form will not be entertained and shall be rejected straight-away.” 4. It was pleaded that the petitioner, instead of complying with the condition aforesaid, submitted a demand draft for the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which had a validity of only six months. Besides, respondent nos. 1 to 4 also viewed her bid with suspicion as the petitioner had submitted a bank draft from Punjab National Bank, Narwana, whereas she herself is a resident of Gaziabad (Uttar Pradesh). 5. The aforesaid being the only reason for denial of the contract to the petitioner, this Court had issued notice of motion in response to which the respondents have submitted their respective counter-affidavits explaining their stand which was not at variance with that of the petitioner. 6. During the course of proceedings, an opportunity was given to the parties to enter into fresh inter-se bidding as the Court felt that the reason by which the petitioner had been deprived of the contract despite her bid being higher was not sufficient to sustain such a denial. 6. During the course of proceedings, an opportunity was given to the parties to enter into fresh inter-se bidding as the Court felt that the reason by which the petitioner had been deprived of the contract despite her bid being higher was not sufficient to sustain such a denial. The submission of the draft for a lesser period was a mere irregularity which could have been rectified, had the petitioner been given an opportunity to do so, which, in our opinion, ought to have been given, especially in view of the fact that. the bid of the petitioner was comparatively healthier and on a better footing. 7. Respondent nos. 5 to 7 stated that they were not interested in any inter-se bidding because they could not improve their bids any further. 8. In this view of the matter and having considered the controversy in this perspective, we are of the opinion that the petitioner, whose bid was higher, could not have been deprived of the contract merely because there was a marginal irregularity which could have been rectified. 9. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and set aside the action of respondent nos. 1 to 4 in awarding contract to respondent nos. 5 to 7 and (sic) the petitioner provided she fulfills all the requisites that may be desired of her, such as furnishing of a bank draft for the requisite period of one year. The needful be done within a period of four weeks.