JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Non-Consideration of the price bid of the Petitioner, despite being qualified in all respects in respect of the technical bid, which unfortunately came to the rejected for non-uploading of the partnership deed in the etender, made the Petitioner to approach this Court seeking for the following prayers :

"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records of the Subject Tender & a detailed report from the respondent No.1 in respect of the subject Tender (Annexure P-1).

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to open the petitioner's Price bid and to award the subject work to the lowest bidder.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in granting any other relief & the Cost of the petition."

2. Heard Shri Rajkamal Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Vikram Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State and Shri Rohit Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent.

3. The sequence of events reveals that Annexure P/1 'NIT' (notification inviting tender) was issued by the 3rd Respondent for construction of a canal with the specifications as given therein. The Petitioner is a registered Class 'A' Contractor; who participated in the bid, submitting the technical bid and the price bid separately. It is stated that copy of all the relevant documents were also uploaded/ furnished as required by the 3rd Respondent, despite which his price bid was not considered. Later, on enquiry, the Petitioner came to understand that the technical bid submitted by the Petitioner was rejected for non- uploading a copy of the partnership deed; whereas despite the non-satisfaction of many of the mandatory requirements in uploading/furnishing copies of the relevant documents including the Pre Bid Qualification Certificate (complete) and as to the 'Litigation details', the price bid given by the 4th Respondent (which according to the Petitioner is 22% above the quote given by the Petitioner) came to be accepted by the 3rd Respondent and the work was awarded to the 4th Respondent. The instance of 'double standard' pursued by the 3rd Respondent in awarding the contract to the 4th Respondent displaying total arbitrariness and discrimination is put to challenge in this writ petition.

4. The Respondents No.1 to 3/State and the 4th Respondent have filed separate replies, in response to which, separate rejoinders have been filed by the Petitioner as well.

5. Shri Rajkamal Singh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no basis for rejection of the technical bid submitted by the Petitioner with reference to non-uploading of copy of the partnership deed, as it was already submitted by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent for getting registration as an 'A' Class Contractor. That apart, it was also produced for issuance of the 'Pre Bid Qualification Certificate' in connection with Annexure P/1 NIT itself. It was after considering the credentials and the nature of the entity, that the Pre Bid Qualification Certificate was issued, a copy of which was also uploaded by the Petitioner along with the tender documents as insisted in the NIT. This being the position, non-uploading of copy of the registered deed is not at all fatal, as it is not an essential document, but an ancillary document. Even otherwise, if at all, there was any shortcoming in this regard, it was quite open for the Respondents to have instructed the Petitioner to produce a copy of the registration deed and the Petitioner was ever willing to produce it at any point time, as there was nothing to hide in connection with the tender in any manner.

6. With reference to the returns filed by the Respondents, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that non-submission of the complete set of documents by the 4th Respondent stands virtually conceded. Specific reference is made to A