The above writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exhibit P3 order to the extent it refers to the rate quoted by the petitioner for the work tendered by the first respondent Corporation as “31% below the estimate rate”. The petitioner contends that he had submitted a price quote sheet in respect of the work in Exhibit P2. Though he had written his quoted rate as 31.2% below the rate shown in the schedule, he had scored off the figure “31.2%” and had clearly written that he quoted the rate 10% above the rate shown in the schedule. The petitioner submits that though the rate quoted was shown in figures and words, as 10% above the rate shown in the schedule, in one place in Exhibit P2 the words and figures “31.2% below the rate shown in the schedule” was omitted to be scored off. Thereafter, it is submitted that the price bid was opened on 27.11.2007 and the disparity in the two rates quoted were endorsed by the second respondent immediately on the quote sheet itself. Exhibit P2(a) document is produced to substantiate this contention. Thereafter, by Exhibit P3, the petitioner was issued with a work order awarding the work and he was required to execute the agreement after deposit of security and to start the work at the rate
