Intention to do sth

Yesterday, Sr. Professor while teaching in class, gave some useful learnings, which I wish to write here. Somewhere, the discussion upon the “intent to do something” cropped up. He explained the above with the following short story:

The intent to do something by the convict is central to any award of punishment in the judiciary.  He told, this is not a modern development, and has been around since the olden times. A similar situation had come to Gautam Buddha. He had two cases came up in front of him:

1) A dacoit with the intention to murder and loot a person on his way, strangled him, and thinking he was dead, left him unconscious there. Somehow, the victim survived, and demanded justice.

2) A Doctor while treating a patient of the ulcer in stomach, as soon as he placed the knife on the stomach, the patient died.

Whom to hang?

The intent of the doctor was not to murder, in fact his intent was the noble cause of making the patient healthier. But, the patient died. On the other hand, the intent of the dacoit was to murder, however, the victim survived.

Contracts and Tenders

Yesterday, there was lecture of contracts and tenders in class. Some of the things which Sr. Professor  taught us, and I like to mention here:

1) To qualify, the tenderer has to meet the technical eligibility and financial eligibility. ( he must have carried out a work of similar nature of atleast 35% of the tender value, and the turnover in the qualifying period should be atleast 150% of the tender value).

2) L1 is valid, eligible, technically acceptable lowest bid tenderer.

3) The lowest bid tenderer need not be L1, if the above mentioned criteria valid and technically acceptable are not met.

4) The Tender Commitee has to consider the offer of such L1 only, whether to accept, to reject, or to negotiate.

5) If L1 backs out, CVC issued a letter in 2004 regarding this situation, that the only option available with Tender committee is to reject the tender, and re-invite the tender.