Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajib Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 March, 2019
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
12.03.2019
Item No.8
ad
W.P No. 5572(W) of 2019
Rajib Ghosh
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Abdur Rakib
Mr. Raju Bhattacharya... For the petitioner
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Arindam Deb Roy ... For the State
Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the
following relief:
"b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents,
their officer and subordinates specially the respondent nos.5 and 6 to show cause as to why the NIT vide 18/KGP/19, dated 18.02.2019 and vide 19/KGP/19, dated 18.02.2019 be cancelled and/or set aside as per the prevailing memos of the Government of West Bengal." The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the tender processes were initiated by notice inviting tender (in short, NIT) no.18/KGP/19 dated 18th February, 2019 and NIT no.19/KGP/19 dated 18th February, 2019. As per the schedule incorporated in the said notice, the petitioner went to collect the tender form but he was not supplied the same by the authorities. Such grievance was ventilated by a representation issued to the respondent no.5 on 5th of March, 2019. Since the composite tender value in NIT 18/KGP/19 dated 18.02.2019 was Rs.6 lakhs and in the NIT 19/KGP/19 dated 18.02.2019 it was Rs.8 lakhs, it was incumbent upon the authorities to conduct e-tender through the centralized e-tender Portal and to publish the same in the print media, as would be explicit from the notification dated 29th August, 2013. Such mandatory 2 requirement has not been fulfilled by the respondents in conducting the said tender processes.
Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents denies the contention of the petitioner and submits that by NIT no.18/KGP/19, bids were invited in respect of four different works under serial nos.1 to 4 and in the NIT no.19/KGP/19, bids were invited for six different works under serial nos.1 to
6. Each work serial for which bids were called for is admittedly less than Rs.5 lakhs and as such, there had been no infirmity in conducting the said tender process.
It appears from the notices inviting tender that the date of issuance of tender form was stipulated to be from 18th February, 2019 till 5th March, 2019. The grievance of the petitioner that the authorities did not supply the tender forms was ventilated by a representation dated 5th of March, 2019. In between 18th of February, 2019 to 4th of March, 2019, no complaint was lodged by the petitioner contemporaneously. In the representation dated 5th March, 2019, the notification dated 29th August, 2013 was not referred to. Furthermore, it appears from the two notices inviting tender that bids were invited in respect of the individual works. In the notices it has been stated that multiple bids (more than one bid by same bidder) and variable rates (different rates of same item by same bidder) shall be rejected outright. The earnest money was required to be deposited by the participants against the particular work serial for which they opted to apply. All the individual works as detailed in the two notices inviting tender are less than Rs.5 lakhs.
3
In the said conspectus, this Court is reluctant to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)