Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Anil Bareja vs Union Of India & Others on 22 December, 2014
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
14
W.P. 32334(W) of 2014
Sri Anil Bareja
Vs.
Union of India & Others.
Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder,
Mr.Shuvanil Chakraborty,
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya ...For the Petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Gupta ..... For the Respondent Nos.
4,5 and 6.
The writ petitioner had responded to a notice inviting tender in respect of train No. 12825/12826 RNC- NDLS - RNC Sampakranti Exp on Round Trip basis for leasing 23 tonnes of space in the parcel van.
The date of issue of tender notice was 27.5.2014. One of the conditions for being eligible to participate in the tender was furnishing of audited balance- sheet of the last financial year being 2013- 2014.
There were other conditions specified also, but for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition, this is the condition on which the dispute arises.
The petitioner's case is that a new form was prescribed for the purpose of filing annual returns and audited accounts for the said financial year and for that reason the last date for filing income tax return was extended till 30.11- 2014.
In this case, the petitioner's contention is that he was the highest bidder but for the reason of introduction of the new form, he could not file the copies of the audited accounts at the time of opening of the tender.
The railway administration had extended the time for submitting audited balance- sheet from time to time and as late as 4-9.2014, the petitioner was requested to file audited balance sheet "at the earliest". The petitioner claims to have filed the audited balance sheet under cover of a communication dated 31.10.2014. On 30.10.2014, however, the petitioner was issued a letter informing him that his tender could not be considered.
Case of the petitioner is that as he was the highest bidder his bid ought to have been accepted as furnishing of accounts is a procedural matter not having significant impact on the bidding process and his turnover far exceeds the qualifying criteria.
2
Learned Advocate for the Railway Administration submitted that as none of the bidders could produce audited balance- sheet, the railway authorities have chosen to cancel the tender process altogether and issue fresh tender.
In this regard, records of the tender committee has been produced in court today. I find from the records that on 11.10.2014, three members of the tender committee had recommended discharge of the tender and advised re- tendering of the same parcel space. It also appears from record that only one bidder had submitted audited balance sheet on 27th September, 2014 but that could not be accepted, the same being post tender submission.
I do not find any flaw in the decision of the railway authorities for cancelling the tender. It is true that there had been extension of time in the case of the petitioner but the same process was not undertaken in respect of the other bidders. I do not think the action of the respondent authorities in extending the date can constritute waiver of the condition for submission of accounts within the prescribed timeframe.
If I accept submission of the petitioner on that account, that would amount to discrimination against other bidders.
I, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the tender, which this court is informed has already been floated for the same parcel space.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties on compliance of usual formalities.
( Aniruddha Bose, J ) 3 4