JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, engaged in providing security services, has challenged the letter of award issued by respondent no.2 (DTTDC) in favour of respondent no.3 with respect to a bid in which the petitioner had also participated, on the ground of the decision/selection being in breach of an essential condition of the tender document and also because of unfair conduct of respondent no.2. 2. On an invitation for e-tender for deployment of security services, the petitioner, respondent no.3 and five others participated wherein respondent no.3 was adjudged the lowest bidder (L1). The petitioner was adjudged L4. 3. The petitioner submits that the bid of respondent no.3 was not responsive as all the columns of the financial bid were not filled up. He further submits that the same was fraudulently and maliciously filled up by respondent no.2 in order to favour respondent no.3. Under the instruction to bidders, it is stipulated that the tenderer shall fill each and every column of the financial bid and no column would be left blank or filled as nil/zero. 4. The petitioner could lay his hands upon the price bid of respondent no.3 wherein under the description of chargeable head regarding cost of uniform allowance and other equipment, only three columns relating to security guard, supervisor and gunman were filled whereas the other columns with respect to CCTV operator, helper, driver, data entry operator, dispatch clerk and ticket window clerk were left blank. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that even though, in overall analysis, the price bid of respondent no.3 was the lowest but it's bid was not compliant with the terms and conditions and was in specific breach of clause 9 of the instruction which required every column to be filled. It is further submitted that the total calculation was made by filling up the other columns at the same rate but at the instance of respondent no.2 which, firstly was not permissible and, secondly, was aimed at favouring respondent no.3, another participant, thereby vitiating the entire process of selection. 6. In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the tender document did not envisage rejection of a bid in case certain columns were left blank. It was further submitted that the impact of leaving certain columns with respect to cost of uniform etc. 6. In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the tender document did not envisage rejection of a bid in case certain columns were left blank. It was further submitted that the impact of leaving certain columns with respect to cost of uniform etc. for some of the deployments would, at the worst, mean that payment under those heads would have to be borne by the bidder. However, in order to arrive at a consolidated figure for award of work, the same rate as quoted by respondent no.3 in some of the columns was filled up in other columns and which exercise was done uniformly for all the bids wherein columns were left blank. 7. We have perused the documents. Even if the columns which were left blank by respondent no.3 were not filled up by the agency inviting the tender, the price bid of respondent no.3 would have been even lower. Thus, in any event the respondent no.3 would have remained L1. 8. Leaving certain columns blank, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion is not such a material deviation from the term of the tender documents so as to render automatic rejection of the bid of a particular bidder. Assuming for the sake of argument, that such requirement of the tender was breached by the agency inviting the tender, it could not be held to vitiate the process of selection as it was filed up for arriving at a consolidated figure. This was done with other bids also, thereby putting nobody to any disadvantage. 9. The contract has already been awarded and we do not consider it expedient to interfere in the matter. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. CM 36487/2016 1. In view of the petition having been dismissed, the application has become in fructuous. 2. The application is disposed of accordingly.