TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioners stating that the Chandigarh Administration has not accepted the petitioners' withdrawal of an additional term mentioned in the bid submitted by the petitioners in response to the respondents' tender. The petitioners' bid was accordingly rejected. 2. Respondent No.1 is the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Division/Circle of the Union Territory. Respondent No.4 is the Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Administration. Respondent No.5-M/s Vee Kay Electricals is the party to whom the work has been awarded upon the rejection of the petitioners' bid. 3. Respondent No.2 invited tenders for the work of providing electrification of 2108 fla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k physically in the office of tender opening authority. ..... ..... ..... ..... 15. List of Documents to be scanned and uploaded within the period of bid submission. ..... ..... ..... ..... d. Undertaking as per condition No.13 & 16(a). ..... ..... ..... ..... 28. Conditional or Telegraphic tenders/tenderers sent through Fax will not be accepted. ..... ..... ..... ..... 30. The offer must be completed in all respect along with all technical/financial detail as required in tender specification. During comparison of offer, if clarification would be required, the bidder will respond in not more than 4 days of issue of clarification letter failing which the bid of bidder wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntend that the official respondents having called upon them to rectify the bid and their having rectified the bid, their tender ought to have been accepted and the rejection thereof was unwarranted and illegal. 7. The financial bids were opened on 20.07.2015. It was thereafter that the said letter dated 21.07.2015 was written by the official respondents to the petitioners calling upon them to rectify the bid. Clause-13 of the NIT specifically provided that a copy of the undertaking shall be scanned and uploaded to the etender website within the period of the bid submission. Further, Clause-15(d) required the undertaking as per Clause-13 to be scanned and uploaded within the period of bid submission. The undertaking furnished by the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted, entitled the official respondents to ignore the rates and other financial conditions, which were not part of the digital system certificate entered into the bill of quantities (BOQ) and duly signed digitally. He submitted, therefore, that the rates entered by the petitioners in the BOQ and duly signed digitally could have been considered and the said condition imposed in the undertaking that the service tax would be charged extra, as applicable, could have been ignored. 11. This interpretation of Clause-11 appears attractive at first blush. However, as Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submitted, the interpretation on behalf of the petitioners is incorrect. What is liable to be ignored is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Clause-11, the rate is to be straightaway ignored. The bid, therefore, could not have been considered at all. 14. Clause-30 of the terms and conditions does not support the petitioner's case either. Mr. Mansur Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, also relied on Clause-30 of the e-tender notice which reads as under:- "30. The offer must be completed in all respect along with all technical/financial detail as required in tender specification. During comparison of offer, if clarification would be required, the bidder will respond in not more than 4 days of issue of clarification letter failing which the bid of bidder will be evaluated on its own merit." He submitted that Clause-30 contemplate....