JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Petitioner has challenged the award of contract of 'Hamali Work' by respondent- 1 Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation.

2. Facts of case relevant for disposal of this petition, in nutshell, are that respondent No.1 floated online tender of 'Hamali Work' for Kharif Season 2019-20. Last date for submission of tender/bid document was 04.05.2019 and bid opening date was 05.09.2019. In the said tender proceedings, eleven tenderers have submitted their offers online including the petitioner as well as respondent No.2. Technical bids of the tenderers were examined by the Tender Committee in which initially respondent No.2 and one Ashok Kumar Agrawal were found to be 'ineligible' as per Annexure P1. Reasons assigned for declaring petitioner as 'ineligible' in the technical bid are as follows;-

"i) According to tender condition, copy of receipt of Demand Draft in the District office of respondent No.1 has not been attached online;

ii) Contract Integrity Pact was not notarized."

Price bid of respondent No.2 was opened and in many of the items of tender, respondent No.2 was declared to be 'lowest bidder (L1)'. Petitioner being aggrieved by the action on the part of respondent No.1 in opening the price bid of respondent No.2 even after enlisting him to be ineligible, has filed this Writ Petition seeking for following reliefs:

"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the letter dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P1) to the extent to which it allows the respondent No.2 to rectify the disqualification in the tender process.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare and consider the candidature of the petitioner for award of tender considering the petitioner's price bid.

10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the decision to declare respondent no 2 (Anmol Singh Bhatia) as eligible to participate in price bid as bad in law and thus illegal.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition."

3. Ms. Harshita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had not uploaded essential documents along with e-tender i.e. copy of deposit receipt of Demand Draft in the District Office, and further his 'Contract Integrity Pact' was not notarized, as per the requirement of tender document. She further submits that on account of afore lapses found by the Tender Committee on the part of respondent No.2, he has been shown to be ineligible in the list prepared by respondent No.1 of all the bidders whose bids have been evaluated by the Committee. She submits that though respondent No.2 has been shown to be ineligible, respondent No.1 has opened his price bid, which is an illegal and arbitrary act on the part of respondent No.1. She also submits that non-submission of aforementioned two documents, in the manner as prescribed under tender document, respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to participate in further tender process. She also submits that action on the part of respondent No.1 in permitting respondent No.2 to further take part in tender proceeding and opening of his price bid even when the mandatory requirements have not been fulfilled by respondent No.2 and finding him to be ineligible, is bad in law. She places reliance on the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangan and Andhra Pradesh, in Writ Petition No.1068/2015, parties being KRF Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana and ors.

4. Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that all the bids/offers submitted by