Madras High Court
Socio Economic And Educational ... vs The Commissioner, Tirunelveli ... on 9 June, 2008
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
ORDER V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract to her, in view of the offer made in pursuance to the tender made on 19.03.2008, being the highest bidder, as per rule.
2. According to the petitioner, she is having adequate experience in the field of maintenance of toilets and sanitation as a self help group organisation in the district level rural development programmes and projects organised by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. While so, the first respondent called for tender on 06.03.2008 and 13.03.2008 in Daily Thanthi newspaper, for maintenance of Pay and Use Toilets and Free Toilets cum Bathroom, Sanitation and Upkeeping, and as she has got necessary experience and qualification in the said field, she applied for tender form on payment of Rs. 275/- and she was issued with the tender form on 12.03.2008. On receipt of the tender form, she has gone through the conditions carefully and, as per the requirements, she has paid Rs. 10,000/- by Demand Draft towards E.M.D. and submitted the same on the scheduled date along with the application on 19.03.2008 to the first respondent. The tender was opened by the first respondent on 20.03.2008 in the presence of the Assistant Works Officer, Superintendent, petitioner and other three tenderers and, on opening the tender, it was noticed that the petitioner was the highest bidder and the other three were the lowest bidders.
3. The petitioner further states that among the four persons participated in the tender, she quoted the highest offer of Rs. 2,01,050/-, being the monthly rent payable to the first respondent Corporation, as against Rs. 1,06,000/- quoted by the third respondent and the other two tenders were rejected on the ground of insufficient experience and, therefore, the petitioner and the third respondent alone were eligible competitors for the above work. Also, as the petitioner is the highest bidder, she is entitled to the award of contract. However, the first respondent has informed that a decision has been taken to award contract to the third respondent instead of the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved over the said decision taken by the first respondent and also the second respondent, the petitioner gave a representation, stating that her offer is for Rs. 2,01,050/- whereas the offer of third respondent is for Rs. 1,06,000/- with a difference of Rs. 95,050/- per month and altogether causing a total revenue loss of approximately Rs. 30.00 lakhs to the first respondent Corporation for a period of three years. Further, as per Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules 2000, the highest bidder should be considered for award of the contract and, as such, the first respondent has not followed the rules, as laid down in the Tenders Act. In addition, when her representations were pending consideration, the first and second respondents have completed the entire tender process. It is also her case that 80% of the members of the petitioner trust belong to S.C.Community, deserving priority and even otherwise, priority should have been given to the Women Self Help Group like the petitioner and if the contract is awarded to the third respondent, the first respondent, being the public institution, would incur heavy financial loss and she would also be prejudiced.
5. First respondent has filed a counter, stating that in the advertisement, dated 13.03.2008, itself, he has made it clear that the Corporation called for tender for maintenance of pay and use toilet at new Bus Stand only from registered NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) and, therefore, the first and foremost requisite qualification for the applicant NGO to file tender process is that it must be a registered NGO. The petitioner has submitted his tender papers on 19.03.2008, but, as per the conditions mentioned in the publication, the tenderer has to make payment of deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the Corporation Treasury on or before 18.03.2008 at 04.00 p.m., which condition the petitioner has not complied with and, instead, he made the deposit only on 19.03.2008, through a Demand Draft. The tender papers were opened by the respondent in the presence of Corporation officials and the tenderers. Though six NGOs have received tender papers, only five of them participated at the time of opening and scrutinizing the tender papers on 20.03.2008. Three NGOs viz., Uthavum Kakrangal, Poonjolai Sanitation Work Committee and Theepam Women Self Help Committee have made deposit before 04.00 p.m. on 18.03.2008, whereas the NGOs, namely, SEED Trust (writ petitioner) and Bright Trust have made the deposit only on 19.03.2008. The petitioner has not enclosed the list of ongoing activities as contemplated in column No. 5 of the tender application along with the tender papers. Further, the petitioner has not given any details of his previous experience in sanitation and upkeep of bus stands. Though the petitioner has enclosed the certificate of Executive Officer of Courtallam (Special Grade Town Panchayat), the said certificate does not disclose any previous experience of the petitioner of maintaining of pay and use toilets in bus stands. Three tenders have been rejected due to the lowest offer. However, the tender of the petitioner was rejected for the reasons (i) she has not produced the document to show that she is a registered NGO, (ii) she has not paid the tender deposit of Rs. 10,000/- into the Treasury of the Corporation before the stipulated time i.e., before 04.00 p.m. on 18.03.2008, (iii) she has not enclosed the list of ongoing activities along with the tender papers, (iv) she has not given any details of previous experience in sanitation and upkeep of bus stands, (v) she has not submitted the tender papers with her signature, accepting the terms and conditions and (vi) she has not produced records regarding PF and ESI relating to their workmen, who are employed in the sanitation works.
6. It is also stated in the counter that the third respondent, namely, Uthavum Karangal, which is a registered NGO, has complied with all the necessary requirements and it is now attending to number of sanitation works in the Corporation area, including the maintenance of pay and use toilets in the Tirunelveli Junction Bus Stand and it has 60 sanitation workers and it has also produced the document to show that it provides PF and ESI facilities to its workers. Further, after completing the tender process, the respondent placed the subject matter before the Council of Corporation and after an elaborate discussion, the Council unanimously accepted the tender of the third respondent and passed a resolution unanimously to that effect vide resolution No. 643, in its meeting dated 26.03.2008. Rule No. 26 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules 2000 mentioned in the writ petition deals with the time taken for evaluation and it does not deal with the matter in dispute. Also, the resolution of the Council of the Corporation accepting the tender of the third respondent and rejecting the tender of the petitioner with reasons has been communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted only two papers from and out of the tender application form received from this Corporation on 19.03.2008. The petitioner has produced the terms and conditions signed by her in the typed set, whereas those papers have not been produced along with her tender papers and hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for. In addition, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ of mandamus, without asking for quashing the tender process and, therefore, on that sole ground, this Writ Petition has to be dismissed.
7. Third respondent has also filed a counter, stating that in the tender notification, a certain condition with reference to submit the tender form and the remittance of EMD has been stipulated. However, the petitioner remitted the EMD only on 19.03.2008 and not as per the notice inviting tenders, as per which the EMD should be remitted before 04.00 p.m. on or before 18.03.2008. Though the petitioner is the highest bidder, her tender was not accepted, as she did not have the required experience of the specific purpose for which tenders are invited. Besides, the petitioner has not produced any record relating to the Group Insurance Coverage, Provident Fund, ESI etc. As such, the tender of the petitioner was rejected. The Corporation, being a public body, is about to provide best services for the benefit of the public at large and the alleged revenue loss cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition. The Corporation Council considered the experience of this respondent and was satisfied with the requirements relating to ESI, PPF, Group Insurance Coverage and Workmen Compensation as per the conditions referred to in the tender form and also the condition that 60 persons should be employed for the purpose of the work to undertake.
8. It is also stated in the counter that this respondent is a society founded in the year 2000 with various objects particularly to maintain environment and also to provide toilet facilities and it is a registered one. Further, it has got the experience for upkeeping the sanitation at various places like Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli Junction, Palayamkottai Gandhi Market, Palayamkottai 5 Car Streets, Tirunelveli Town 4 Car Streets and Bose Market. Besides, this respondent also possesses modern machineries for maintaining the sanitation and has remitted the EMD as per the conditions imposed. Therefore, this respondent, being the successful bidder, is entitled to maintain the toilets, as per the lease allotted.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the decision taken by the first respondent in awarding contract to the third respondent is unjust, arbitrary and against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 and the Rules 2000, which would result in huge financial loss to the first respondent Corporation. The petitioner had applied for tender on payment of Rs. 275/- and received the same on 12.03.2008 along with Tender Bulletin and as there was only seven days time, she submitted the same in time on 19.03.2008 along with E.M.D. and other relevant documents attached with the tender form. In the tender bulletin issued by the first respondent along with the application, General Condition page 7 para 5 clearly states that the E.M.D. has to be paid before 05.00 p.m. by all means the previous day of the opening of the tender on 20.03.2008 and as per the tender conditions, the petitioner has submitted all the required documents along with the E.M.D. within the scheduled time on 19.03.2008 before 03.30 p.m. Further, the petitioner has complied with all the tender conditions and as such the petitioner is qualified for pre- qualification tender as per Rule 32 of the Transparency in Tender Rules,2000 and as per the evaluation and the comparative statement of the tender, the petitioner is the highest bidder than that of the third respondent with a difference of approximately Rs. 1.00 lakh per month and Rs. 34.00 lakhs per three years contract period and, therefore, the petitioner is the eligible bidder for the award of contract, being the highest bidder with adequate experience and hence the first respondent is estopped from raising any objections with regard to the payment of E.M.D. and qualification after the approval of the pre- qualification. When that be so, the contract was awarded to the third respondent, in violation of the rules and regulations of the Act.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that as per Rule 20, the minimum time required for submission of tender is 15 days, but the 1st respondent allowed only seven days time for submission of the tender, in violation of the transparency in tender rules. Further, there is a saving clause with deeming provision in the general conditions of the contract of the tender bulletin that if any tenderer tendered and participated, the tenderer is deemed to have studied and agreed to the conditions of the contract. The petitioner has also complied with the condition as an NGO approved by the proceedings of the State Project Officer, by an order dated 29.08.2005. The petitioner trust was approved by the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, Chennai, for the Government grant and the Income-tax Department has exempted the trust and approved the exemption for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2009 and hence the question of approval and registration of the petitioner trust does not arise and, as such, the petitioner should have been awarded the contract. The petitioner has paid the EMD on 19.03.2008 well within time the previous day of the opening the tender and the question of payment of contribution for ESI and PF will arise only after the employment of staff concerned to the particular work. The contention of the first respondent that the third respondent is a registered NGO and has 60 sanitary works is far from truth, as all the employees were covered under the ESI Act only from 11/2007 and the employees account code obtained in 12/2007. Moreover, the acceptance of tender of the third respondent and the rejection of the tender of the petitioner were not communicated even though there is a statutory provision to keep the minutes of meeting open to the members of the contract and for the inspection of the public on payment of cost and only after filing of the writ petition, the respondent has come forward to show the resolution of award of contract to the third respondent. The averment that the petitioner has not signed in the tender papers is not correct, as there is a saving clause in the tender condition for acceptance of the tender form and it cannot be a reason for rejecting the award of contract to the petitioner. The petitioner, being the highest bidder and recognized N.G.O. both by the State and the Central Government, is entitled for award of the contract. With regard to the contention that the petitioner has not submitted the tender in full form with details about the ongoing scheme and about the previous experience in the field, the petitioner has submitted the tender form with full particulars as called for in the tender, which can be evident from the tender comparative tabulation by the respondent. In addition, for the work of sweeping, savaging, latrine and unskilled and manual in nature, no high technical expertise is needed and therefore the employment of any number of persons for the upkeep and its maintenance is not a problem for an organisation like the petitioner which runs about 230 self help groups with 80% of it are downtrodden people of the society. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition.
11. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has cited the following decisions:
(i) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. ;
It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licencdes or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily as its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.
(ii) Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Ors. :
Once the Government decides to award contract on the basis of bid by tender, it must abide by the terms of the tender. In the absence of any policy, award of contract to a Government Undertaking by granting price preference and rejecting the most suitable offer of a private contractor in contravention of terms of the tender is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14.
(iii) Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries :
10. ...The object of inviting tenders for disposal of a commodity is to procure the highest price while giving equal opportunity to all the intending builders to complete. Procuring the highest price for the commodity price undoubtedly in public interest since the amount so collected goes to public fund....
(iv) S. Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi :
9.Thus, the law is very clear that ordinarily all contracts by the Government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible persons will have opportunity to bid in the same.
(v) Madras Security Printers v. State of Tamil Nadu .
33. The object of the enactment is to foster and encourage effective participation by tenderers in the process of tenders; to promote healthy competition among tenderers; to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers; to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices in the matters relating to tender process by providing transparency in such matters and also to promote the integrity of the process of tenders and to promote fairness and public confidence in the processing of tenders by ensuring transparency in the procedure relating to procurement.
12. Conversely, Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Counsel for the first respondent would contend that totally six persons purchased the tender papers and only five of them submitted the tender documents to the first respondent. As per the notification made on 13.03.2008, the tenderer must be a registered NGO and the EMD has to be made on 18.03.2008 itself. That apart, as per the tender application, the tenderer has also to satisfy the conditions, namely, previous experience in sanitation and upkeep of bus stands, compliance of statutory requirements such as ESI, PF etc. At the time of opening of tenders on 20.03.2008, all the five tenderers were present and the sealed tenders were opened in the presence of the tenderers by the Corporation authorities. The writ petitioner has made EMD only on 19.03.2008. Hence, the petitioner has not complied with the eligibility criteria for scrutinizing the paper itself. Further, the petitioner has not at all produced the documents to show that it is a registered NGO along with the tender papers, which is also a non-compliance of the eligibility criteria. Therefore, on these two grounds, the tender papers submitted by the petitioner have to be rejected even before scrutinizing the same. Though the petitioner has mentioned the registration number of the trust deed as 766/04, the requirement of registration of the NGO is under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act or under any other enactments. The tender papers of the petitioner and the third respondent were placed before the Council of the Corporation in the meeting held on 23.06.2008 and the Council transacted the matter thoroughly and unanimously rejected the tender of the petitioner for the reasons that (i) she has not produced the document to show that it is a registered NGO, (ii) she has not paid the tender deposit of Rs. 10,000/- into the Treasury of the Corporation before the stipulated time i.e., before 04.00 p.m. on 18.03.2008, (iii) she has not enclosed the list of ongoing activities along with the tender papers, (iv) she has not given any details of previous experience in sanitation and upkeep of bus stands, (v) she has not submitted the tender papers with her signature, accepting the terms and conditions and (vi) she has not produced records regarding PF and ESI relating to their workmen, who are employed in the sanitation works. In the same meeting, after rejecting the tender papers of the petitioner, the Council accepted the tender of the third respondent for the reasons that the third respondent has (i) produced a copy of the certificate of registration issued by the Deputy Registrar of Societies, Tirunelveli, vide its Registration No. 56/2000; (ii) made the EMD on 18.03.2008 and thus he has complied with the eligibility criteria at the time of scrutinizing the tender papers; (iii) got experience in sanitation works and now it is attending the sanitation work of maintaining the pay and use toilets in the Tirunelveli Bus Stand of the Corporation and it has 60 number of sanitation workers, which is comparatively higher than the petitioner Trust; (iv) produced the document to show that it provided PF and ESI facility to its workers and (v) not committed any default in payment of monthly instalments in respect of subsisting works undertaken by it in the Corporation. Therefore, the Council has undertaken the process of the tender papers in accordance with rules.
13. The learned Counsel has also argued that it well settled that when an alternative remedy like appeal is available, the writ is not maintainable without exhausting that remedy. Under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, any tenderer aggrieved by the order of accepting the tender of another may appeal to the Government within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order and the Government is empowered under the said Section to pass interlocutory order also. Since the petitioner has not availed the said appeal remedy, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.
14. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Counsel has cited the following decisions:
(i) S. Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi and Anr. 2005 Writ L.R.30:
18. ...the Supreme Court observed that the highest bidder can claim no right to have his tender accepted, although this power to reject the highest tender should not be exercised arbitrarily.
(ii) G. Jayakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore AIR 2006 MADRAS 81:
3. ...Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the value of the tender is less than rupees two crore and hence, the minimum period, according to Rule 20 (1) of the Rules, for submission of the tender forms should be fifteen days. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the appellant has submitted his tender before 4-1-2005, which was the last date prescribed by respondents for submitting the tender. Hence, the appellant cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice even if Rule 20 (1) of the said Rules was violated.
4. ...To obtain a writ, the petitioner must also show that he has suffered some prejudice on account of such violation of law. This is because writ jurisdiction is equity jurisdiction. To obtain a writ, the petitioner must satisfy the Court on both points viz., (1) violation of law by the respondent and (2) on account of such violation, the petitioner has suffered some prejudice. If the petitioner only shows violation of law but fails to satisfy the Court that he has suffered some prejudice, no writ will be issued in his favour.
15. Learned Counsel for the third respondent has relied on the following decisions:
(i) Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 651 : "While Court does not interfere with Government's freedom of contract, invitation of tender and refusal of any tender which pertain to policy matter, but whether the decision/action is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality or 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' i.e., when decision is such as no reasonable person on proper application of mind could take or procedural impropriety can be looked into by Court."
(ii) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Chennai, v. Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, Chennai, and Anr. :
64. ...In the absence of relevant particulars relating to any particular individual or offer, we are unable to attach any importance to the bald statements....
66.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the allegations of mala fide or demand of bribe have absolutely no basis....
(iii) R. Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam :
10. ...the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. Further, the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Board must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government, merely because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Board can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. In addition, in the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters.
16. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions and also the decisions cited by them.
17. On an analysis of this case, it is seen that the first respondent has called for a tender on 06.03.2008 and 13.03.2008 in Daily Thanthi newspaper, for maintenance of Pay and Use Toilets and Free Toilets cum Bathrooms, Sanitation and Upkeeping. It is also seen that the petitioner has applied for a tender form on payment of the prescribed fee and she was issued with a tender form on 12.03.2008. After a perusal of the terms and conditions of the tender document, she has paid the EMD of Rs. 10,000/- and submitted the application on 19.03.2008 and the tender was opened on 20.03.2008.
18. It is pertinent to state that a reading of the tender notification, dated 13.03.2008, would indicate that the last date for payment of EMD was 18.03.2008 before 04.00 p.m. So, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the last date for payment of EMD was 19.03.2008 is rejected. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the tender notice dated 13.03.2008 is not in compliance with Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules on the ground that 15 days time has not been given from the date of application to the date of submission of tender papers is not sustainable, because, if really the petitioner has got any grievance regarding the said notification, she ought to have questioned the notification itself, without purchasing the tender papers and submitting the same. When the petitioner purchased the tender papers and submitted the same quoting the valuation as per the rule, the writ cannot be entertained and hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Further, the tender has been awarded in favour of the third respondent by a resolution dated 26.03.2008, whereas this Writ Petition was filed on 27.03.2008 and the same got listed on 30.03.2008. Once the tender process is completed, the writ of mandamus alone is not maintainable, without asking for quashing the tender process.
19. It is also seen that the petitioner has not produced the document to show that she is a registered NGO; she has not paid the tender deposit of Rs. 10,000/- into the Treasury of the Corporation before the stipulated time i.e., before 04.00 p.m. on 18.03.2008; she has not enclosed the list of ongoing activities along with the tender papers; she has not given any details of previous experience in sanitation and upkeep of bus stands; she has not submitted the tender papers with her signature, accepting the terms and conditions and she has not produced records regarding PF and ESI relating to their workmen, who are employed in the sanitation works. In the absence of the above details, this Court does not find it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner.
20. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to the petitioner, whereas the decisions relied upon by the respondents have much relevance to the case on hand and applying the ratio laid down therein, the case of the petitioner has to be rejected. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the decision of the first respondent accepting the tender of the third respondent, she should have appealed the same to the Government within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, which remedy is not exhausted by her. In S.Selvarani's case (referred to above), the Supreme Court has categorically held that the highest bidder can claim no right to have his tender accepted. Even in the case of R.Kumar (cited supra), this Court has held that the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender and the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Corporation must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Court would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Court cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government, merely because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Corporation can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. In addition, in the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, Court will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. When the Council of the first respondent found the third respondent suitable in all respects for the execution of the work, the writ petitioner, who has not satisfied the requirements according to the tender notification, will have no say that she, being the highest bidder, has to be awarded the contract. Highest bidding alone is not sufficient for awarding the Government contract, but fulfilment of the conditions is also equally important. If the conditions are ignored, the execution of work may not be qualitative, resulting in sub-standardness, which cannot be allowed.
21. The Supreme Court has laid down the proposition in various rulings that scope of judicial review in the matter of tender is limited and the only scope is to examine as to whether the decision making process of the tender inviting authority is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness. When the decision is proper and it is made in accordance with the law contemplated and there is no procedural impropriety, this Court cannot interfere with the same, that too in the absence of any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case to show that there is arbitrariness in rejecting her bid, which rejection had, in fact, come to be made only for not satisfying the requirements of the contract. However, since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a consistent plea that the representation of the petitioner giving details is though not materially placed before this Court has been made to the respondents 1 and 2 and the same is pending, it is open to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. One more contention that the petitioner has quoted the highest bid amount and therefore she has to be awarded the contract does not hold good, for the reason that though fetching higher revenue is a matter of importance in the tender process, the awarding of contract should not be at the cost of other conditions.
22. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the action of the first respondent in rejecting the tender of the writ petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos. 1,2 and 4 are closed.