JUDGMENT

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

1. The petitioner, a limited company, engaged in the business of textiles and manufacturing of prefabricated steel structures for erection of warehouses, factories, workshops, railway station sheds, etc. participated in a bid issued by respondent no.1, for supply, fabrication and erection of pre-engineered roof structures of 8 elevated stations. In the aforesaid bid, the respondent no.2 had also submitted a bid and was declared to be the L-1 bidder (lowest bidder) whereas the petitioner was placed at L-2.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent no.1 of opening the cost bid of respondent no.2 on the ground of it’s bid not being compliant with the requirements set out in “Instructions To Tenderers” (ITT).

3. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/ or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned action/ decision of the Respondent No. 1 in opening and/ or accepting the financial bid of Respondent No. 2 on 16.06.2016 and/or awarding the tender to Respondent no.2;

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/ or any other writ directing the Respondent No.1 to disqualify the Respondent No.2 for placing a materially defective bid and providing false information in its bid document;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/ or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to disqualify the Respondent No.2 and grant the tender to the Petitioner who is the lowest bidder in terms of the Tender rules.

(d) pass an order in respect of the costs of litigation in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.

(e) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.

(f) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the instant case.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to tender conditions especially clause B 1.1 of ITT which provides that the tender documents submitted by the tenderers should include bill of quantities/pricing documents and clause B 1.2 of ITT, requiring the tenderers to submit bids which are responsive to the requirements of the tender documents.

5. Attention has also been drawn to clause 2.5 of the ITT which requires a tenderer to quote prices as per clauses 11.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and clause 17 of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC).

6. For the sake of completeness, the aforesaid provisions of ITT, GCC and SCC are extracted below:

Clause B 1.1 and B 1.2 of ITT:

“B1.1 The Tender Documents, as listed below, have been prepared for the purpose of inviting tenders for construction of all Permanent and Temporary Works in connection with Contract: CC-111: Supply, Fabrication, and Erection of Pre-Engineered Roof Structure of 8 elevated Stations viz Shahid Nagar, Raj Bagh, Rajendra Nagar, Shyam Park, Mohan Nagar, Arthla, Hindon River and New Bus Adda (GZB) on Oils had Garden to New Bus Adda Corridor and as more particularly described in these documents.

(a) Notice of Invitation to Tender;

(b) Instructions to renderers including annexures;

(c) Form of Tender Including appendices;

(d) Special Conditions of Contract Including Schedules;

(e) General Conditions of Contract;

(f) Condition of Contracts on Safety, Health &

Environment (SHE);

(g) Employer's Requirements including Appendices;

(h) Technical Specifications;

(i) Tender Drawings;

(j) Bill of Quantities I Pricing Document B1.2 The Tenderer is expected to examine carefully the contents of all the above documents. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Tender documents will be at the Tenderer's own risk. Tenders that are not substantially responsive to the requirements of the Tender documents will be rejected.”

Clause 2.5 ITT”

“C2.5 Tenderers shall quote all prices as per Clause