the bid or as on the date of the ten<jer closing. rvhereas. the petitioner by taking into consideration the enhancernert of minimum wages vide order dated 08.05.2020 had jr-rst quoted 4.32%o in addition to the arnount indicated in the tender notice, and that respondent Nos.5 and 6 had quoted A f pAR with bid rate i.e., 00% increase. It is further contended that so far as respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the amount payable to the u,orker rvould be worked out to Rs.603/- per day, but, the rninimum wage wor,rld be Rs.629l- and that tl.re petitioner's bid should not have been clenied orr thegror.rnd thatits bid is in violation o1'the tender conditions. It is lirrthercontcndcd that the petitioner had iu fact, submitledits bicl on 01.05.2020quoting00/'o i.e., at par of theirtclicatire pricc ri ith relrard to ScheclLrle-IAs against Schedute-2,the petitioner had quoted Rs'51'55ps (gg.99% below the bid rate).Thus, the offer of the petitioneris for a total sllm ofRs.2,90,42,002.70 ps', whereas'responderlt No.5 hadquoted for Schedule-1at par with 0% increaseand for Schedule-2,63.50% below the bid rate and the total consolidated figure is Rs.2,80,27,440.41ps' ltis alsocontendedthat the amountquoted by respondentNo 5 fbr Schedule-l being at par is iu contraverltionof the orcler dated 08'05'2020passed by the (ior'ert-rttlcrltoilndia.lleplacesrcliallcetlrltlrcjLrdgrnerrtol'tl-ris ('or-rrt it-r Chaithanl'a tlharathi(lrameenaAbhivrudhi Srmsthev'
