SAMIR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the acceptance of the bid submitted by the respondent No.5 in response to DNIe-T No.23/SE/DWSC/AGT/2019-20 and No.24/EE/DWS/AGT/2019-20 for supplying Pea-Gravels, as floated by the Executive Engineer, Rig Division, P.N. Complex, Agartala, the respondent No.4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III Contractor and dealing in various contract works throughout the State of Tripura for last few decades. It is also not in dispute that the bid that has been submitted by the petitioner has been accepted by the tendering authority as formal. It has been alleged that the respondent No.5, a Co-operative Society registered under the Tripura Cooperative Societies Act, 1974 was not eligible to submit the bid. The bid submitted by the respondent No.5 had been assessed to be L-1 as the respondent No.5 has quoted the lowest money for supply of required quantity of the Pea Gravels from query source to the destination i.e. the departmental stockyard in an around 8 k.m. from Agartala. The petitioner has stated further in the writ petition that the respondent No.5 has been declared L-1 without examining the eligibility/competence of the respondent No.5 to participate in the bid. There is no dispute that the petitioner has become L-2 in terms of the quoted rate. In this regard, there is no dispute.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 is incompetent to participate in the process inasmuch as the supply has to be made within Sepahijala District, Tripura. But the certificate of registration under No.204 of 2003 part of Annexure-2 to the writ petition [page- 52] as uploaded by the respondent No.5, shows that "the area of operation of the society, so registered shall be confined within Padmapur, Sripur, Dewanpasha and Radhapur". Thus, the said society could not have participated in the said tendering process. Further, it has been asserted by the petitioner that from the resolution adopted by the society in the meeting held on 06.02.2020, it would appear that the Chairman of the society [the respondent No.5] Debejya Kumar Chowdhury handed over all the relevant documents to the Manager, Sri Biswajit Nath through the Dharmanagar Court, along with the power of attorney and an affidavit. The said decision, vide the resolution No.2, was adopted in the said meeting in respect of participation in the said tendering process. It was also decided in the said meeting [see the resolution No.1] that Sri Biswajit Nath, the Manager of the society is given full authority to submit the tenders with necessary documents of the society. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the President of the society has made an incorrect statement inasmuch as from the general power of attorney by which Sri Biswajit Nath was constituted the attorney of the society, it appears that the said general power of attorney was authenticated on 07.02.2020 with photographs of Sri Debejya Kumar Chowdhury and Sri Biswajit Nath, pasted and attested on the said power of attorney. According to the petitioner, apart that discrepancy, the signatures of Debejya Kumar Chowdhury as appearing on the documents as uploaded are so dissimilar that authenticity of those document has come under cloud of suspicion. The tendering authority ought not have declared the bid of the respondent No.5 as formal.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that those two serious aspects were not at all examined on 26.02.2020 when the bids were opened and the bid of the respondent No.5 was declared formal. The petitioner has raised objection by filing the representation on 02.03.2020 recording his objection in respect of declaring the bid of the respondent No.5 as formal. Later on, at the instance of the respondent No.4 [the tendering authority] a reference was made to the Registrar of Societies who has by the communication dated 14.05.2020, communicated to the respondent No.3 as follows :