Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 April 06, 2017 R.C. W.P. 9876 (W) OF 2017 M/s Kar Construction & Co and Sankar Kar & Sons (IV) & Anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
=-=-=-
Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, ...for Petitioner Mr.Susovan Sengupta Mr. Somraj Dhar ...for State The petitioner assails the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner in a tender process.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the technical bid was rejected as the joint venture is not allowed and that the partnership Deed is not proper. He submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Due to inadvertence, a wrong Deed was presented in the tender process. He seeks an opportunity to participate in the tender process, although the financial bid has since not been opened.
2The learned advocate for the State submits that the tender evaluation committee had opened the technical bid of the tenderers. It had found that the petitioner did not qualify the essential eligibility criteria. It had proceeded to reject such tender of the petitioner. On a query from the Court, the learned advocate for the State submits that the tender is on an online system. After the rejection of the technical bid, the tender evaluation committee cannot open the financial bid of the rejected tenderer as the electronic system put in place does not permit the same to be done.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the electronic system cannot stand in the way of evaluation of a valid tender.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The petitioner had participated in a tender of widening and strengthening of a road. The terms and conditions of the tender does not permit a joint venture to participate in such tender process. Admittedly, the petitioner had produced documents, which leads to one reasonably infer that the first petitioner is a joint venture. The tender evaluation 3 committee upon opening tender documents at the technical evaluation stage, had found that the first petitioner was a joint venture and, therefore, cannot qualify to participate in the tender. The tender evaluation committee had proceeded to reject the tender of the petitioner on such ground. The rejection was done on March 27, 2017. The tender evaluation committee had thereafter opened the financial bid of the valid participants.
A tender is required to be considered on the basis of the
documents made available to the tender evaluation committee. The petitioner had made over papers which the tender evaluation committee has considered. It has inferred that the petitioner is a joint venture. The documents produced before the tender evaluation committee allows a prudent person to make such an inference. The inference drawn by the tender evaluation committee has not been demonstrated or substantiated to be perverse. The petitioner does not allege that the evaluation committee is biased in its decision is arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.
Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the present writ petition.
4W.P. 9876 (W) OF 2017 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )