petitioner company, the respondent ought to have called upon the petitioner to explain as regards the defects, if any, before summarily rejecting their applications. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, merely pointing out the guidelines or instructions given in page No.29 of the tender document as a reason for rejection is not in compliance of the principles of natural justice. In Page No.29 of the tender notifications, there are 18 conditions mentioned and the respondent has not specifically pointed out in the order of rejection as to which of those conditions have not been fulfilled by the petitioners. In any event, the impugned orders of rejection are bereft of any material particulars. However, in the counter affidavits and the reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondent, they have spelt out very many noncompliances. These alleged defects could have very well been pointed out by the respondent prior to rejecting the tender applications of the petiitoner which would have served them an opportunity to immediately rectify the defects. It is further stated that page Nos. 23 and 25 of the tender notification spells out the process of qualifying a tender by awarding them marks on the basis of their financial resourcefulness, work on hand, work force, experience etc., In the present case, it is not known as to what was the marks awarded to the petitiners. Above all, it is submitted that successful bidder, in whose favour the respondent are likely to award the contract, has quoted a higher amount than the one offered by the petitioner. In such event, if the contract is therefore awarded in favour of the petitioner, the government will be the beneficiacy and therefore also, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petitions.
