JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This group of four writ petitions relates to identical issues and is, therefore, heard and disposed of together.

2. Rule in all the four writ petitions. Returnable forthwith. Service is waived by the concerned respondents. Looking to the controversy involved, we dispose of rule finally at this stage.

3. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (I.O.C.), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (H.P.C.L.) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (B.P.C.L.), invited tenders for Award of separate contracts regionwise for transportation of bulk L.P.G. by road in tank trucks. Advertisement to that effect was published in newspapers whereby sealed tenders were invited under a two bid system, viz. Credential Bid and Price Bid from the eligible tenderers. The petitioners herein, viz. M/s. Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Agrawal Automobile, M/s. Agrawal Transport Company were issued tender documents on payment of requisite amount of Rs. 1000/- for each tender. The closing date for credential bid was 11th July, 2002 which was extended to 22nd July, 2002. M/s. Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2525/02 as well as No. 2527/02) submitted one tender to I.O.C. and the other to B.P.C.L. Along with the tender form submitted to the I.O.C., a demand draft of Rs. 12,000/- purchased in the name of H.P.C.L. was annexed while with the other tender form tendered to B.P.C.L., a demand draft of Rs. 12,000/- purchased in the name of I.O.C. was submitted. M/s. Agrawal Automobiles (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2528/02) submitted tender to H.P.C.L. but along with the said tender, a demand draft of Rs. 12,000/- drawn in favour of I.O.C. was annexed. In so far as M/s. Agrawal Transport Company (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2526/02) is concerned, tender form was submitted to the I.O.C. but along therewith, a demand draft of Rs. 12,000/- issued in favour of B.P.C.L. was annexed. Since the demand drafts annexed by the petitioners with the tender forms were not found to be in the name of the Corporation to which tender was submitted, the petitioners credential bids were rejected, giving rise to present writ petitions.

4. The facts, which are reflected from the pleadings and the documents available before us, leave no manner of doubt that the demand drafts were, in fact, purchased by the petitioners for the concerned Corporations in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- each for the purposes of credential bid but seems to have got interchanged. Such interchange could, at best, be a mix up or inadvertence or mistake. The question before us is whether on this ground the respondents, viz. I.O.C., H.P.C.L. and B.P.C.L. were justified in rejecting the petitioners credential bids.

5. As already noted by us, the sealed tenders were invited from the bidders under a two bid system, viz. Credential Bid and Price Bid. Tenderers were required to submit earnest money deposit of Rs. 12,000/- per tender along with the credential bid. The petitioners did purchase demand drafts in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- per tender for submission for the purposes of the credential bid but because of inadvertence or mistake or clerical slip, the demand drafts got mixed up and interchanged. In our considered view, the respondents, viz. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. were not justified in rejecting the petitioners bids by adopting a very hypertechnical stance. The mistake committed by the petitioners by annexing the demand drafts issued in the name of other Corporation deserved to be condoned and waived as it was only a technical irregularity of little or no significance. Before us, Mr. Chirag Balsara, the learned Counsel appearing for I.O.C. was fair in leaving the matter to the Court but Mr. Siodia and Ms. Sheeja John appearing for H.P.C.L. and B.P.C.L. argued that if the bid was not strictly in accord with the terms and conditions, thereof, such bid was liable to be rejected and in such a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document