Bikash Ghosh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 March, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Bikash Ghosh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 March, 2012

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                                 1

                                  In The High Court At Calcutta
                                  Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                          Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                     W.P.No.17568(W) of 2010
                                      Bikash Ghosh & Ors.
                                                v.
                                      Union of India & Ors.

       Mr.Jaydeep Kar
       Mr.Pinaki Dhole              ...for the petitioners.

       Mr.L.K.Chatterjee
       Mr.Monajit Bhattacharjee      ...for the respondents

Heard on: March 29, 2012.

Judgement on: March 29, 2012.

The Court:- The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated August 17, 2010 are questioning a decision of the Central Public Works Department (in short CPWD) to levy transaction fee from all vendors and registration charge from contractors participating in its newly introduced electronic tendering system.

The case of the petitioners is this. They are already registered contractors. They obtained registration paying requisite charge. There is no reason why they should pay registration charge once again for e-tendering. They are skilled enough to transact things necessary for e-tendering and do not need any service provided by any agent engaged for implementing the system.

One ITI Limited is a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Communication & Information Technology. CPWD (of the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India) has engaged ITI to implement its newly intorduced e-tendering, e-procurement, e-auction system as Application Service Provider (in short ASP).

Mr.Kar appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The petitioners are skilled enough to help themselves. They do not need any service provided by ITI. They cannot be compelled to pay transaction fee and registration charge. CPWD deciding to engage ITI for implementing its system cannot pass the associated financial burden on to the already registered contractors who do not need any service from the ASP.

The decision to engage ITI as ASP is a policy decision. It has been engaged to implement the newly introduced mandatory e-tendering system. transaction fee and registration charges are associated with the implementation of the policy decision.

There is nothing wrong in the decision that part or whole of the associated expense should be borne by the vendors and contractors e-tendering for works put out to tender. Tenderers cannot be given the freedom to regulate the policy system in whose implementation the ASP has been engaged. Engagement of an ASP is an integral part of the system. The system cannot be made to live on the tax-payers' pocket. It must live on their expense for whom it is ready with service.

For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sm(c);ab(f).

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)