' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---Brief facts of the case are that tenders were invited through various newspapers for construction of W/T of Sialkot Wazirabad, Rasul Nagar, Kot Harra, Jalalpur Bhattian Roads in District Hafizabad (Section Qadirabad to Jalalpur Bhattian Kilometer No,82.00 to 133.09 L = 41.09 KMs.) RI-DH-.CHEXING of existing bridge over Qadirabad Balloke Link/canal and Construction of Pile Foundation Bridge over SAIM Nullah near Bhiri. Chatha I/C approaches with approximate cost of Rs,4,60,68,019. Another work W/I of Nowshera Virkan to Hafizabad L-30.90 KMs in District Gujranwala, construction of Pile Foundation Bridge over SAIM Nullah (single span 60'-00" and K.M. No,3.00) falling in District Gujranwala with approximate cost of Rs,54,63,655. Petitioner along with (i) Asad & Co. (ii) Nazir Ahmad and Brothers (iii) Ch. Muhammad Sadiq & Co. Submitted their bids for the various items /works as tenderers.
2. Bids/Tenders were opened by Tender Opening Committee on 17-8-2013 in the presence of all participators. According to report and para wise comments filed by the respondents the petitioner and other contractors quoted rates in their bids for works mentioned below:- ' RE-DECKING OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER QADIRABAD BALLOKE LINK CANAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF PILE FOUNDATION BRIDGE OVER SAIM NULLAH NEAR BHIRI CHATHA I/C APPROACHES" APPROXMIATE COST OF RS.4,60,68,019 (Sr. No, 1)
Sr.
No.Name of ContractorRate quoted in the bid.Remarks 1.Messrs Muhammad Asad & Co.6% below on T.S. estimate.Rates written on all pages of bid schedule.
2.Messrs NazirAhmad and Brothers3% above on T.S. estimate.Rates written on all pages of bid schedule.
3.Messrs Techno TimeAll items 4 % above on T.S. estimate cost.Rates written on 5th page of bid schedule and 1st 4 pages out of 5 pages of bid schedule were left blank 4.Ch. Muhammad Sadiq & Co.6.58% below on T.S. EstimateRates written on all pages of bid schedule.
CONSTRUCTION OF PILE COUNDATION BRIDGE OVER SAIM NULLAH (SINGLE SPAN 60'-00" IN KM NO. 3.00) FALLING IN DISTRICT GUJRANWALA, APPROXIMATE COST RS.54,63,655 (Sr. No,4). {{TABLE}} S. No.Name of ContractorRate quoted in the bidRemarks 1.Messrs Nazir Ahmad Brothers.3% above on T.S. estimate.Rates written on all pages of bid schedule 2.Messrs Techno TimeAll items 4% above on T.S. estimate cost.Rates written on 3rd page of bid schedule and Ist 2 pages out of 3 pages of bid schedule were left blank.
3.Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Co.5.28 % below on T.S. estimate.Rates written on all pages of bid Schedule.
4.Messrs Muhammad Asad and Co.3% below on T.S. estimate.Rates written on all pages of bid schedule.
3. Petitioner and the other contractors filed their bid on printed forms. Tenderers were required to enter unit rate and amount against pay items in the relevant columns of the bid schedule. The received bids were entered in tender register on 17-8-2013 and evaluated by preparing comparative statement. Petitioner quoted rates all items are 4% above the estimated cost on the last page of bid schedule but left remaining pages blank of all works of Serial Nos.1 and 4.
' Clauses 9(i) to (v) of the Tender/Contract Documents which says:-
(i) The tenderer shall work out the amount against each item of work in the bid schedule and will indicate the total amount of his tender on which he is willing to complete the works. The total amount worked out in the bid schedule shall be entered by the tenderer in his tender as his tender price for the work in case of discrepancy between amounts in figures and in words the amount in words shall prevail.
(ii) Should any discrepancy be found in the amount of pay items or if a column of amount is found blank after filling in a unit rate, the unit rate filled by the tenderer will be extended in working out of the amount of the tender and the total amount of the bid schedule will be adjusted accordingly.
(iii) If a unit rate is left blank, but the amount against the item is filled, the unit rate will be worked out on the basis of the amount divided by the quantity of the item shown in the bid schedule.
(iv) If it is found that the tenderer has not entered any unit rate and amount against any of the pay items of the bid schedule, the Engineer-in-Charge shall fill in the blanks by noting the word 'Nil" in such blanks at the time of opening of the tender. Such pay item shall be deemed to be covered by the rates of other items.
(v) If the tenderer does not accept the adjusted/corrected amount of tender according to the above provision, his tender shall be rejected and the earnest money forfeited."
' Petitioner filled only last' page of the bid schedule and other pages were left blank. In terms of the aforementioned clause, rates quoted on the last page were worked out and divided by the quantity of the item shown in bid schedule, thus petitioner became the lowest bidder for serial Nos.
1 with 94.95 % and for serial No,4 90.41 % both below the estimated cost. Being lowest as per general condition Nos. 26-A and 26-B and amended item 'H' of the memorandum, petitioner vide letter Nos.3140 and 3141 dated 27-8-2013 was directed to deposit Rs,4,37,41,584 and Rs,49,39,690 for works of Serial Nos.1 and 4 as additional/performance security within 15 days so that the work could be allotted to him as otherwise CDRs deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs,9,58,000 for serial No,1 and Rs,1,10,000 for serial No,4 total amounting to Rs,10,68,000 will be forfeited.
4. Respondents in addition to the bid schedule have also placed on record bid schedule filed by Asad and Co. And Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Co. Relevant pages in respect whereof by both the tenderers are duly, filled against the item works to be performed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred clauses 8, 24, 25, 26 and 26-B of the Tender/Contract Documents for the tenderers that lowest evaluated bid in case of refusal or for any reason to furnish performance security, the entire earnest money of the lowest bidder shall be forfeited as compensation for such default. It was contended that petitioner has quoted rates all items are 4% above estimated costs, so according to the bid schedule he was placed at No,2 despite failure to pay performance security as directed vide letters Nos.3140 and 3141 dated 27-8-2013, petitioner was entitled for release of security/earnest money.
6. Conversely, it was argued that as petitioner has filled only the last page of the bid schedule so under clauses 9(i) to (v) ibid petitioner became the lowest bidder, his security was liable to be forfeited.
7. Keeping in view clause-9 sub-clauses (iii) to (v) ibid, petitioner became the lowest bidder, respondents provided, him with an opportunity to deposit/pay additional performance security within the stipulated time instead of making compliance, as directed, petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to be declared as successful bidder or in the alternate for return of CDRs deposited as security.
8. Petitioner after being declared lowest as a successful bidder instead of complying with the terms of acceptance of offer started raising questions with respect to Tender/Contract Documents.
Petitioner failed to follow the procedure prescribed for awarding of contract. Contention of the petitioner that his bid being 2nd highest was entitled to release of earnest money is repelled in view of Clause 9 (iii to v) ibid. This Court cannot interfere with the terms and conditions as prescribed in Tender/Contract Documents unless it was established that the same were contrary to public interest. The petitioner, thus, is not entitled to discretionary relief as prayed for, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.