Judgment:
1. The Court :- The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 1, 2010 intended to participate in a tender process in connection with which the tender documents at pp.22-34 were supplied by the respondents.
2. On the first page of the tender documents the following was written:
Time & Date of Receipt of Tender By 02:30 PM On 12-10-2010
Time & Date of Opening of Tender At 03:00 PM On 12-10-2010
3. On the tenth page of the tender documents (under the heading Other Important Information) the following was written:
1. Manual tendering: -
You are requested to submit your complete tender documents THROUGH TENDER BOX (Located at DS&D;,6 Esplanade East, Kolkata-69) in sealed cover (in duplicate) super scribing with the Tender Enquiry No.Gr.Sheet-C/C-2/RC-RH020000/1011 or through Speed Post/Regd. Dak to be addressed to Tender Receipt Cell by 1.30 PM, to be opened on 12.10.2010 at 03.00 PM of quoting bidders.
4. It has been stated in the opposition that 14 (fourteen) tenderers dropped their respective tenders in the tender box by 1.30 p.m.; that the tender box was opened sharp at 1.30 p.m.; and that the representative of the petitioner approached the authority concerned with a request for accepting the petitioners tender at 1.35 p.m.
5. The petitioner sent by fax two handwritten letters both dated October 12, 2010 (at pp.35 and 36) asserting in one that though its representative went to deposit tender at 1.30 P.M. but the tender Box was emptied before 1.30 P.M. and in the other that its representative Dropped the tender in the tender Box at 1.30 P.M. (last time to drop). But the tender Box was opened & tenders collected two minutes before 1.30 P.M. The letters were faxed one at 2.43 p.m. and the other at 3.24 p.m. Alleging that the respondents denied it opportunity to participate in the process, finally it brought this petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued as follows. The respondents stating in their affidavit that because of a printing error on the first page of the tender documents the time of receipt of the tenders was mentioned as 2.30 p.m., should not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. The petitioner intending to drop the tender, even if was present at 1.35 p.m., in all fairness, ought to have been permitted to tender for the work, because it was misled by the alleged printing error.
7. The question is whether the printing error regarding the time of receipt of the tenders on the first page of the tender documents actually misled the petitioner.
8. As noted hereinbefore as many as 14 (fourteen) tenderers dropped their tenders by 1.30 p.m., the time mentioned on the tenth page of the tender documents. In the petitioners letters both dated October 12, 2010, faxed one at 2.43 p.m. and the other at 3.24 p.m. on that same day, the petitioner did not explain why its representative was present at the place at 1.30 p.m., as claimed by it, if it was its impression that the tenders were to be dropped by 2.30 p.m. Through the petitioner, if it was actually suffering from any confusion, got sufficient opportunity to get necessary clarification why on the first page of the tender documents the time of receipt of the tenders was mentioned as 2.30 p.m., when the time for the same purpose was mentioned on the tenth page of the documents as 1.30 p.m., it did not make any attempt to obtain any clarification from the authority.
9. Except the petitioner no one else made any complaint about the two different times mentioned in the tender documents. On the contrary, it is evident that all the intending tenderers were certain that they were required to drop their respective tenders by 1.30 p.m. In its letter dated October 12, 2010 at p.36 the petitioner clearly said that the last time to drop the tender was 1.30 p.m. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the case of the respondents that the representative of the petitioner approached the authority with a request to accept the tender only at 1.35 p.m. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to hold that the petitioner was misled by the printing error on the first page of the tender documents concerning the time of receipt of the tenders. The representative of the petitioner reached the place beyond the stipulated time and hence the authority was justified in refusing to accept its tender. Acceptance of its tender submitted beyond the time stipulated in the tender documents would have been illegal and unfair to the other fourteen tenderers who submitted their tenders within the specified time.
10. The facts of the case do not suggest that the respondents wanted to take any advantage of their own mistake. They rather fairly clearly suggest that for some undisclosed reasons the representative of the petitioner knowing that the last time to drop the tender was 1.30 p.m. reached the place for dropping the tender after 1.30 p.m. Hence it cannot be said that the respondents denied the petitioner opportunity to participate in the tender process.
11. For these reasons, I dismiss the petition. G.A. No.3505 of 2010 filed by the respondents for vacation of the interim order shall be deemed to be disposed of. No costs. Certified xerox.