10.04.2023 coupled with the objections raised to the eligibility of the second respondent, the said aspects were not considered in the process of re-assessment. It was necessary for the Tendering Authority to have considered the matter in this regard. Further the Tendering Authority did not publish any corrigendum though reference to the same was made in the analysis undertaken by the Chartered Accountant. Since the corrigendum as stated had not been published nor had any due publicity been given, it was not permissible for the Tendering Authority to change the tender conditions. It was then submitted that the financial bid of the second respondent indicated an amount that was much less than the estimated cost. In the tender notice the estimated cost indicated was Rs. 22,17,600/- while the bid of the second respondent at Rs.12,25,224/- came to be accepted. In terms of the conditions of the tender notice, the financial bid of the second respondent ought to have been rejected. It was not permissible for the Tendering Authority to deviate from the terms and conditions indicated in the tender notice. It was thus clear that the entire tender process was flawed and in an arbitrary exercise of authority the Nagpur Municipal Corporation had issued the work order to the second respondent. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Anil Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U. P. and another [(2004) 8 SCC 671] and submitted that the prayers made in the writ petition ought to be granted.
