JOGASWAR 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.5532- 37/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.3 as formal or regular. It has been further urged by this petition that the official respondents shall be prohibited to act on the bid as submitted by the respondent No.5 for having the licence against M.G. Bazar F.L. shop No.3.

(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.3 in response to the DNIT No.5532-37/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 registered a formal complaint on 24.02.2020 [Annexure-2 tot the writ petition] 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 further revealed that the proposed shop premise is a rented premise and the owner of the shop premise is 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, for not conforming to Clause 4(ii) of the DNIT by the respondent No.5 as it is evident from 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 substantiate his grievance. The petitioner accordingly, appeared before the respondent No.4 and analyzed the documents uploaded by the respondent No.5 and stated that the papers as uploaded by the respondent No.5 are not adequate to establish the financial ability. 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 kutcha viti tin shed [KVT]. The petitioner 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 confirmation of such fact from Agartala Municipal Corporation under Right to Information Act. It may be noted here that one Tapas Saha who had submitted bid for M.G. Bazar F.L. Shop No.4 raised the similar objection. Agartala Municipal Corporation by their letter dated 18.03.2020 had intimated Tapas Saha that there was no touji in the M.G. Bazar under No.21MGD1832. The said information was duly placed before the respondent No.4.