BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that although its price bid was the lowest, the tender has been awarded to the respondent No.4, whose bid, according to the petitioner, was higher than that of the petitioner. The central point involved in this writ petition is the determination of whether, upon a consideration of the tender conditions, the petitioner is the lowest bidder or the respondent No.4 is the lowest bidder.

2. Sealed tenders were invited on a turnkey basis in two parts, that is, a technical bid and a financial bid. The work was for the construction of LIG houses as a turnkey project at Sector-14, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi. Tenders were invited in respect of the balance work which had been left unfinished by the previous contractor. As per the invitation for tenders, the estimated cost of the project was Rs 12,18,15,106/- and the period of completion was stipulated to be 20 months. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 responded to the said Notice Inviting Tender. The technical bids were opened on 17.11.2008. Both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were found to be qualified and eligible for the next stage of consideration. The financial bids were opened on 09.01.2009. The work was awarded to respondent No.4 by the respondent No.1 [Delhi Development Authority (DDA)]. According to the petitioner, the said work has been wrongly awarded to respondent No. 4 inasmuch as it was the petitioner who was L-1 (lowest bidder) and not the respondent No.4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the form of the financial bid required a lumpsum figure to be quoted for the entire work. The relevant portion of the form of the financial bid reads as under:-

?I/We hereby tender to the Vice-Chairman, DDA for the execution of the work specified in the tender written memorandum. We undertake to execute the work within the specified time for the total sum of Rs. _________ (Rupees____________) and we further undertake that the work shall be executed entirely and in all respects in accordance with the specifications, drawings to be approved at later stage and instructions in writing, which may be issued by the Engineer-in-Charge from time to time for the proper and timely execution / completion of the work.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the figure entered by the petitioner in the said financial bid form was Rs 22,85,11,376/-, whereas the figure given by the respondent No.4 in the financial bid form submitted by it, was Rs 22,86,00,000/-. Consequently, it was submitted that the petitioner‘s financial bid was lower than that of the Respondent No.4 and the work ought to have been awarded to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the purported reason why the respondent No.4‘s bid was being considered as lower than that of the petitioner was on account of a wrong interpretation being placed by the respondent/DDA on the Additional Tender Conditions which form part of the tender documents. The learned counsel submitted that Section-I of the bid documents, which gave the brief facts of the work, contained clause 8, which clearly stipulated that the work would be awarded on lumpsum cost basis and payment would be made at various stages of construction as specified in the tender papers. He also drew our attention to the additional conditions of the said tender. Clause 3 of the additional conditions was as under:-

?3. The agency should examine the various items in Schedule =B‘ at page 158 (Annexure-?D) & quote the rates accordingly. Our attention was also invited to clause 4.1 of the said additional conditions which, inter alia, provided:-

?4.1 ….. This scope of work given in the NIT is only indicative and not exhaustive. The agency shall be responsible for execution of all items required for completing these houses in all respects to make these units habitable and ready for occupation as well as functioning of all