-situ piles of 1000 MM dia, at the length of 1 meter at the rate of RS.20,528/-. Under clause 2 (b) for another bored cast- in -situ piles of 1000 MM dia, with a different specification also ,he had quoted same rate of Rs.20,528/-. Under clause 2 (c), for a corresponding pile having a dia meter of 500 MM dia, he had quoted Rs. 8902/-. It is clear that, nowhere in the tender documents nor in any other specific document corresponding to it, including the tender schedule or the agreement schedule there was a specification for use of MS Liner. It is also not in dispute that the MS Liner was not used for the piling in the construction of Pathalam Regulator – cum-Bridge, across river Periyar. The specific contention of the contractor was also that since MS Liner was not required to be used, he did not use that and that he had quoted the piling rate including MS Liner. In otherwords, amounts that he had quoted under clauses2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c) did not include MS Liner. The specific case of the contractor was that since MS Liner was very expensive component, he would have quoted a much higher amount, if that was asked for. It was also contended by the learned senior counsel for the contractor that usually in all tenders, wherever MS liner was to be used, separate rates would have been demanded in the NIT. In the case at hand, since it was not required to be used by the NIT, he proceeded as if it was not required and thereby quoted rates, which was not inclusive of the rate for MS Liner.
