Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Model Construction Company & Anr vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 18 December, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
December 18,
2017
R.C.
W.P. 30641 (W) OF 2017
Model Construction Company & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors.
=-=-=-=-=
Mr.Arunva Ghosh,
Sr. Advocate
Mr. Soumya Majumdar
Mr. Victor Chatterjee,
...for Petitioner
Mr. Saptanshu Basu,
Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abdul Hamid
Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya
Mr.A.K. das,
...for Respondent no.7
Mr. Sakhaya Sen Mr. AmritlalChatterjee, ...for State The petitioner assails a rejection of a technical bid in the e-tender process initiated by the notice inviting tender bearing No. e-NIQ No. WBIW/SE/EC/NIQ-1(e)/2017-2018.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the tender process. The petitioner has executed similar nature of work for the Kolkata Port Trust. He relies upon a bunch of documents which he claims that, the petitioner had submitted in the e-tender process which will establish the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria by the petitioner under the subject tender process.
He contends that, a portion of the tender is given to a person constantly with the other portion of the tender being given to one of the other participants. He submits that, some of the participants have the same 2 mobile phone and other details which shows that they are under the same umbrella. Therefore, the tender process stands vitiated. He submits that, the Court should invite affidavits in order to look into the issues.
The State is represented. The learned advocate for the State submits that, the nature of work in the subject tender is different to that which the petitioner claims to have executed. Under the subject tender, the participants are required to supply three numbers of MST Pontoons/Barges of the specified length. In the contract executed by the petitioner, the petitioner had repaired a gangway path which cannot be treated as similar in nature. Therefore, the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria to question the tender process. Moreover, the tender has since been awarded. The work is emergent in nature in view of the fact that it relates to preparation of the area for Ganga Sagar Mela. The time is too short for making alternative arrangements.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no.7 submits that, his client has commenced work for the subject tender. He further submits that, the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria to assail the tender process. He seeks directions for filing affidavits.
The issues raised in the writ petition are such that an opportunity should be granted to the respondents to file affidavits.
Let affidavit in opposition be filed within three weeks from date, reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. The writ petition will be treated as ready for hearing immediately on completion of the time stipulated for filing affidavits.
Liberty to the parties to mention for early hearing. The tender will abide by the result of the writ petition. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. ) 3 4 5