Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sri Anish Gupta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 4 September, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
23
04.09.2015
rrc
W. P. 17739 (W) of 2015
(Sri Anish Gupta & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. Kallol Basu
Mr. Nilanjan Pal
.....For the petitioners
Mr. Sunil Kumar Chakraborty
Ms. Rama Chakraborty (Mukherjee)
......For the respondents
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Government Pleader, in compliance with the earlier order has obtained instructions and has submitted before this Bench that the notification dated 17th March, 2003 issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal fixing the rate of minimum freight in respect of heavy goods vehicles is still in force.
The petitioners had participated in a tender process initiated by the respondents for outsourcing of casual labours and two vehicles with drivers and fuel for conservancy services and lifting of garbage. There were six other bidders including the eleventh respondent who had expressed interest and participated. The respondents prepared a comparative statement of the bids. Except one (the eleventh respondent), the bids of others were rejected. 2 The eleventh respondent, whose bid was found to be in order, was regarded as the L-1 bidder. The petitioners considering themselves aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not having treated the petitioners' partnership firm as the L-1 bidder, presented this writ petition seeking an order for quashing of the decision whereby they were deprived of the status of the L-1 bidder. Affidavits were called for, which have since been exchanged.
It has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondents that while considering the bids received from the bidders, Government Order No. 1337-WT/3M-10/2011 dated 25th March, 2014 on the subject of 'Rates of charges of hiring/compensation in respect of vehicles/launches to be hired/requisitioned during the forthcoming 16th Parliament General Election, 2014 and Bye-Election for West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2014' issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal was looked into. The said Government Order was never published in the Gazette and, therefore, the bidders may not have had the opportunity of looking into its contents. It was further not mentioned in the tender notice that the bidders would 3 have to offer rates keeping in mind the contents of such Government Order. Also, it does not appear from the comparative statement prepared by the respondents that the said Government Order had been referred to for the purpose of rejection of the bids of all the bidders except one.
To my mind, the respondents acted unreasonably firstly by not notifying the bidders that they ought to quote rates having regard to the contents of the Government Order dated 25th March, 2014 and thereafter by rejecting the petitioners' bid without express reference to such Government Order.
That apart, there is justification in the contention of Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner that Government Order dated 25th March, 2014 having been issued in respect of hiring of vehicles for the 16th Parliament General Election, 2014 and Bye-Election for West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2014, the same could not have prevailed over Government notification dated 17th March, 2003, referred to above.
In any event, these issues need not be examined in depth any further since Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the respondents are contemplating issuance of fresh 4 tender notice incorporating necessary particulars to guide the prospective bidders while they offer their bids. Law is well settled that a tender issuing authority ought to be allowed some free play in the joints; therefore, this writ petition ought to be disposed of setting aside the process till now and granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.
If fresh tender notice is issued, the respondents shall ensure full transparency by giving detailed particulars of their requirements and the petitioners, subject to eligibility, shall be free to participate. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )