Sl. No.,Items,Unit,Qty./day (tentative),Rate (Rs.),Amount (Rs.)
1,Bed Cover,Each,30,15/-,450/-
2,Bed Sheet,Each,30,10/-,300/-
3,Pillow Cover,Each,30,10/-,300/-
4,Hand towel,Each,30,10/-,300/-
5,Bath towel,Each,30,10/-,300/-
6,Basin Towel,Each,30,10/-,300/-
7,Table cloth,Each,30,80/-,2400/-
8,Tray Towel,,30,10/-,300/-
9,Curtain,Each,30,80/-,2400/-
10,"Mattress (dry wash), if
required",Each,30,200/-,6000/-
11,Blankets (dry wash),Each,30,150/-,4500/-
12,"Pillow (dry wash), if
required",Each,30,100/-,3000/-
,Total cost per day,,,,"20,550/-
C2,"Total cost per month
(30 days)",,,,"6,16,500/-
7,Table,Each,30,15.00,450.00
8,Tray Towel,,30,9.90,297.00
9,Curtain,Each,30,55.90,1677.00
10,"Mattress (dry wash), if
required",Each,30,900.00,27000.00
11,Blankets (dry wash),Each,30,400.00,12000.00
12,"Pillow (dry wash), if
required",Each,30,50,1500.00
,Total cost per day,,,,15274.00
C2,"Total cost per month (30
days)",,,,458220.00
27,000/- and again for dry washing the blankets of 30 nos. per day @ Rs. 400/-, the total came to Rs. 12,000/-. If the total cost per day of Rs. 15,274/-",,,,,
arrived at also includes the amount of Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively, a simple mathematical calculation would show that the total cost per",,,,,
day of Rs. 15,274/- which was arrived at would have to be incorrect. If the rate offered for dry washing the mattresses and dry washing the blankets",,,,,
is Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- per day, respectively, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the total for 30 days would be Rs.",,,,,
13,74,600/- cannot be stated to be an incorrect calculation. As per the correct conclusion, if the amount payable to the respondent No. 2 for the 30",,,,,
days period comes to Rs. 13,74,600/- and the total amount quoted by the respondent No. 1 for 30 days would be Rs. 7,04,759/-, the acceptance of the",,,,,
respondent No. 2 to be the L-1 bidder would be an incorrect assessment or conclusion.,,,,,
10. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the allotment of the work in favour of the respondent No. 2 and it remanded the",,,,,
matter back to the authorities for a fresh decision in accordance with law.,,,,,
11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.06.2019, the present intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant IITG.",,,,,
12. Mr. R.P Kakoti, learned senior counsel for the appellant urges upon the ground that in reality, the number of mattresses and blanket that would be",,,,,
required to be dry washed would not be 30 nos. each per day. The requirement of dry washing of mattresses and blankets being not a daily,,,,,
requirement, according to the learned senior counsel, the actual payment that the appellant IITG would be required to make against the items of dry",,,,,
washing of mattresses and blankets would be much less. If the said aspect is taken into consideration and a re-calculation is made, the rate quoted by",,,,,
the respondent No. 2 would be much lesser amount that the appellant IITG would be required to pay. Accordingly, it is the contention that in the public",,,,,
interest and in the interest on equity, the decision arrived at by the appellant IITG to allot the work to the respondent No. 2 is justified and the",,,,,
interference of the same by the learned Single Judge would be unsustainable.,,,,,
13. We appreciate the contention sought to be raised by Mr. R.P Kakoti, learned counsel for the appellant IITG. The said contention may have been",,,,,
acceptable if the appellant authorities had required the bidders to have submitted their rates on the basis of one number of quantity of the item per day,,,,,
and there upon arrive at the total amount to be paid to the successful bidder. But as already extracted the tender notice itself required that the rates,,,,,
for the laundry items would have to be quoted by the bidders on the basis of 30 items per day, by assuming it to be the requirement per day and the",,,,,
price evaluation would be done as per the quoted rates of each item for 30 numbers for 30 days.,,,,,
14. An acceptance of the method of calculation arrived at by the appellant IITG, as projected by the learned senior counsel, in our view, would be a",,,,,
deviation of the specific method of calculation provided in the tender notice itself. In other words, if a different procedure is allowed to be adopted, the",,,,,
same would not only change the tender conditions, but would also allow the rules of the game to be changed after the game had begun.",,,,,
15. The tenderers are all hardened businessman, who knows the implications of the rates that they have quoted and the tendering authority while",,,,,
preparing their tender notice are also expected to know the implication of the procedure prescribed by them in the tender notice for the purpose of,,,,,
submission of the financial bids. A subsequent realization that the calculation required to be made in the given procedure would lead to a higher,,,,,
payment being made to the bidders, cannot be a reason for the appellate authorities to change the procedure to be adopted which was clearly spelt out",,,,,
in the tender notice.,,,,,
16. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant IITG. In the circumstance, when we",,,,,
look at the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment dated 17.06.2019 in WP(C) No. 8520/2018 no infirmity could be found,,,,,
which would require an interference.,,,,,
17. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed.",,,,,
