TAPAS SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents No.1,2 & 3 declaring the technical bid of the respondent No.5 submitted in response to the DNIT No.5562- 67/F.XX-1(3)/CEW/SFLCL/20 dated 15.01.2020 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for settlement of M.G. Bazar Foreign Liquor Shop No.4. It has been further urged by the petitioner that the respondents No.1,2 & 3 shall be prohibited to act on the bid as submitted by the respondent No.5 for having the licence for the M.G. Bazar F.L. shop No.4.

(2.) There is no dispute that both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 had participated in the tender process for settlement of the M.G. Bazar F.L. Shop No.4 and for the period as noted in response to the DNIT No.5562-67/F.XX-1(3)/CEW/SFLCL/20 dated 15.01.2020 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for the periods of 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. During opening of the technical bids in two bids system, the petitioner had observed serious deficiency in the tender documents uploaded by the respondent No.5. Hence, he had lodged a formal objection on 24.02.2020 demanding rejection of the tender of the respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, from the documents as uploaded in the official website of the respondents No.1 to 4, it revealed that the documents uploaded by the respondent No.5 were not in conformity with the requirement of the said DNIT. It has been asserted by the petitioner that on perusal of the documents submitted by the respondent No.5 it surfaced that the proposed shop premise is a rented premise and the owner of the shop-premise was one Subhadeep Saha. To substantiate the tenancy relation with Subhadeep Saha, the respondent No.5 submitted the following documents and declaration:

(3.) According to the petitioner, the financial ability of the respondent No.5, is highly questionable and as such, he raised serious objection by filing a formal letter dated 24.02.2020, particularly for breach of Clause 4(ii) of the DNIT by the respondent No.5 enclosing all documents as downloaded from the said website. On receipt of the said letter dated 24.02.2020 the respondent No.4 issued a notice on 05.03.2020 upon the petitioner and asked him to appear before him on 06.03.2020 at 11 am to have substantiated his grievance. The petitioner accordingly, appeared before the respondent No.4 and analyzed the documents uploaded by the respondent No.5 and claimed that the papers as uploaded by the respondent No.5 are not adequate to establish the financial ability of the respondent No.5. He had also raised an additional objection that the shop premises must be pucca or semi-pucca but from the touji document, it appeared to the petitioner that the shop premise is a kutha viti tin shed [KVT]. He has also contended that there is no touji in M.G. Bazar under No.21MGD1832. The petitioner was asked to substantiate that allegation by documentary evidence. Then the petitioner took initiative to get disclosure or confirmation of such fact from Agartala Municipal Corporation. Agartala Municipal Corporation by their letter dated 18.03.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition ] had intimated the petitioner that there was no touji in M.G. Bazar under No.21MGD1832. The said information was placed before the respondent No.4.