ORDER
1. A tender notice dated 25-5-1999 has been challenged by way of this writ petition. Respondent No. I issued a tender notice on 30-10-1998 inviting tenders for the ‘provision of minimum essential technical and storage accommodation at Pulgaon’. The petitioner alongwith some others applied for tender documents. He got tender documents and submitted the same. The estimated cost of the work was Rs.2500 lakhs and work had to be completed within 20 months from the date of handing over the site. The tender documents originally had to be submitted on 30th December, 1998 but the period was extended to 1st February, 1999. It is submitted by the petitioner that Respondent No.l in between 21st December, 1998 and 29th January, 1999 issued as many as six amendments in respect of the above work. The amendments have been cited in the affidavit. It is further stated that the tender documents ran into hundreds of pages and numerous details and specifications had to be given. The rates quoted in the documents have to be kept secret therefore this job had to be given to selected senior staff of the petitioner company. The petitioner submits that, as the tender documents had to be submitted on 1st
February, 1999 he filled up the tender
documents on 29(h January, 1999. As there
were 65 pages to be filled up and 30th and
31st January, 1999 were being holidays
therefore the job was completed on
29th January, 1998 itself and the documents
were sealed. However, in the morning of
1st February, 1999 a fax message was
received which was dated 29th January,
1999, by this communication the petitioner
was informed about sixth amendment.
Therefore, tenders were re-opened and
necessary corrections were made. On
1 st February, 1999 the tenders were opened
and the rates quoted by the tenderers are as
follows:
M/s. Sarvana Constructions Ltd.
Rs. 27.03.14.171.10
M/s. R.D.S. Projects Ltd.
Rs. 24.88,77,083,90
minus 3% discount
M/s. P.L. Raju Constructions Ltd.
Rs.22,99,64,730.67
Ms. Indrajit Mehta
Rs.23,09.58.873.99
2. After opening the tenders, certain clarifications were sought and it appears from the pleadings that respondent No. 1 started negotiations with the petitioner because a letter was received on 26th February, 1999 from respondent No.l to the petitioner requesting him to reduce the rates quoted. By letter dated 1st March, 1999 the petitioner quoted revised rales for Schedule-A part-XVII but expressed his inability to reduce the rates any further. By letter dated 9-4-1999 respondent No.l requested the petitioner for extending the validity of the offer made by the petitioner which was only valid for a period of 90 days. The petitioner agreed and the offer was kept valid upto 30th June, 1999. The petitioner submits that his tender became the lowest and he was expecting acceptance by respondent No.1. It is stated that when the letter of acceptance was about to be issued respondent No.4 raised certain objections regarding the corrections made in the tender documents by the petitioner and according to the petitioner respondent Nos. 1
to 3 conveyed to respondent No.4 that corrections had been duly initialled and therefore the tender could not be rejected, but inspite of this respondent No.4 ordered for re-tendering of the work without assigning any reason by notice dated 25-5-1999.
3. A large number of judgments have been referred to by the Counsel for the petitioner and he has argued in detail. I need not refer to any judgment which have been referred because of the simple reason that no right had accrued to the petitioner to get the contract. Only an offer had been made by him in response to a tender notice and it was in the process of consideration by the respondents. The respondents thought it proper to re-tender the work and there was no cstopel in the way of the respondents in re-tendering the work when the tender of the petitioner had not been accepted. Although many judgments have been cited, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any judgment by which it can be said that the respondents were bound to allot the work to the petitioner and not to re-tender it. Before acceptance of tender, in my view, no rights or liabilities accrue to either of the paities. Even according to the pleadings of the petitioner, at no point of time there was a promise given to the petitioner that his tender would be accepted. All that the respondents were doing was that they were trying to see that the rates are lowered down and in order to take a final decision at one point of time they asked the petitioner to extend the validity of the offer. In my view, this would not be a promise and there would be no estopel for the respondents to re-tender the work. Re-tendering of work, in my view, is the most transparent, fair and open option which has been exercised by the respondents. In any case, the petitioner is not going to suffer. He can also participate in the re-tendering. Since the respondents have been fair and transparent and have not awarded the contract
to anybody else after getting the offer of reduced rates from the petitioner and have re-tendered the work, I do not think any arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents.
4. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.