bids, the financial bids were opened on 30.09.2016, with a comparative statement of all the tenderers showing the rates submitted by the petitioner as 1% for Zone No.1 and 0.01% for Zones No.2 and 3. On the other hand, the rates quoted by respondent No.3 for all the Zones has been shown as 0.00% (Annexure P-3 (colly.)) which was totally unlawful and noncompetitive. During the follow-up of the petitioner with respondent No.2, it transpired that the rates quoted by the petitioner for Zones No.1 to 4 was 0.01% i.e. the lowest having the lawful consideration for performing the assignment by charging the minimum possible service/administrative charges. On the other hand, the rates quoted by respondent No.3 was 0.00%, which was not at all responsive or competitive, submitted without any lawful consideration. However, it was learnt that the rates quoted by respondent No.3 have been shown as 0.0001% and the work was being considered to be allotted to respondent No.3-M/s Innovision Ltd. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner sent representation dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 for allotment of work to it being the lowest bidder, but no response has been received till date. Moreover, while issuance of the allotment letter which is to take place w.e.f. 01.11.2016, another agency-M/s Terrier Utility Services Pvt. Ltd. is also continuing with its earlier agreement, by providing security in three Zone upto 31.10.2016. The respondent-Department has allotted the tender to respondent
