ORDER

1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 4-10-1994 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4046 of 1994.

3. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CIDCO), an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra, invited tenders for certain construction work. The tender notice required the tender to be submitted in two envelopes, one envelope was to contain the covering letter, receipt, challan/bank guarantee towards earnest money deposit, list of documents, etc. and the second envelope was to contain the financial bid. Both these envelopes were to be placed in one common envelope. The last date for submission of tenders was 31-8-1994. When the tender box was opened on 1-9-1994 it was found that one of the tenderers, Unique Constitution Corporation, had submitted one more envelope. The said envelope was not opened on 1-9-1994 along with the tenders. The quotations which were received from the five tenderers, who were found eligible, were as follows :

1. R.P. Shah 54% above the quoted rate

2. Unique Construction Corporation 55% above the quoted rate

3. Three Circle 60% above the quoted rate

4. S.N. Thakkar 62% above the quoted rate

5. Gleg Engineers 64% above the quoted rate

4. On 7-9-1994, the additional envelope which was submitted by Unique Construction Corporation was opened and it contained a revised offer of 45% above the quoted rate. On 7-9-1994, R.P. Shah gave a revised offer of 39% above the quoted rate. The case of M/s Gleg Engineers is that they had also given a revised offer on 7-9-1994 of 38% above the quoted rate. Before any of the offers could be accepted, R.P. Shah filed the writ petition giving rise to these appeals before the High Court. The High Court has held that additional envelope which was submitted by Unique Constitution Corporation was not in consonance with the requirements of the tender notice and the same could not be opened and considered. The High Court observed that the quotation of R.P. Shah for 54% above the quoted rate was the lowest amongst the quotations of the five tenderers and that even if the revised offers of Unique Construction Corporation and R.P. Shah were to be considered the revised offer of R.P. Shah of 39% above the quoted rate was the lowest and, therefore, the award of the contract to Unique Construction Corporation would be arbitrary. On behalf of CIDCO it was submitted before the High Court that CIDCO would suffer unnecessary loss if R.P. Shah is allowed to resile from his revised offer of 39% above the quoted rate and that CIDCO were willing to accept the revised offer of R.P. Shah. The High Court, therefore, directed CIDCO to award the contract to R.P. Shah at 39% above the quoted rate. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, these appeals have been filed.

5. We do not consider it necessary to go into the validity of the submission of the additional envelope by Unique Construction Corporation, but since the revised offer that was submitted by R.P. Shah on 7-9-1994 has been directed to be accepted by the High Court we are of the view that it was in the fitness of things that the other tenderers should also have had an opportunity of making their revised offer, if they wanted to do so, before the revised offer of R.P. Shah could be accepted. In this context, it cannot be ignored that M/s Gleg Engineers have claimed that they had made a revised offer of 38% above the quoted rate on 7-9-1994 which was not considered by the High Court. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it would be more appropriate that all the five tenderers should be afforded an opportunity to make their revised offers and the CIDCO may consider the said offer and award the contract to the tenderer whose offer is found suitable.

6. It is, therefore, directed that the f