Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
National Consumers Cooperative Store ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 March, 2025
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
05
11.03.2025
d.p.
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.A 5620 of 2025
National Consumers Cooperative Store Ltd.
-versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anindya Lahiri,
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta,
Mr. Tirthankar Dey,
Mr. Anish Chakraborty.
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajarshi Basu,
Mr. S.T. Mina.
...For the State.
1. The matter relates to a tender process for
selecting carrying-cum-storing contractors of food stuff
for different ICDS Projects under Murshidabad.
2. The terms and conditions of the tender
mentions that the agent should mention his rate for
carrying-cum-storing per quintal irrespective of
distance including loading and unloading charges. The
charges will be admissible only for the actual quantity
of food stored and carrying. The agent should have
own/rented godown. The authority had the discretion
to reject bids where absurd rates are offered.
3. The petitioner is concerned with the project
at Samserganj. For the year 2023, the petitioner was
selected as the lowest bidder with the rate 74.85.
4. In the year 2024, the petitioner participated
in the auction but failed to emerge as the L1 bidder.
5. The L1 bidder quoted the rate of 0.95. The
petitioner contends that the rate quoted by the L1
2
bidder is absurd and a contractor cannot quote such
low rate.
6. I have heard the submissions made on
behalf of both the parties.
7. The memo which discloses the approved rate
per quintal for the year 2024-25 is annexed to the writ
petition. The approved rates in respect of the ICDS
projects in the District of Murshidabad are mentioned
therein.
8. It appears that most of the bidders have
quoted rate below Re. 1/- and the authority has
accepted the rate in respect of the other ICDS projects
in the District of Murshidabad.
9. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
State respondents submits that this is the usual rate
which the other bidders have also quoted in respect of other projects and the authority denies the contention of the petitioner that the rate quoted by the L1 bidder is absurd.
10. It is for the authority to ensure that the project is successfully concluded by the selected bidders.
11. The writ petition at the instance of an unsuccessful bidder fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
( Amrita Sinha, J.)