SHYAMAL 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 accepting the technical bid of the respondent No.4 towards finalization of the tender for settlement of Bankumari Bazar Foreign Liquor Shop, Bankumari for the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. The petitioner has also challenged the assessment of the Evaluation Committee as the petitioner has categorically asserted that the evaluation committee has accepted the ineligible technical bid of the respondent No.4. It has been further urged by the petitioner that after cancelling the technical bid of the respondent No.4 the effort be taken to finalize the tender for settlement of the said F.L. Shop for the years 2020- 2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.

(2.) There is no dispute that both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 had participated in the tender process for settlement of the said F.L. Shop and for the period as noted, in response to the DNIT No.5646-51/F.XX-1(3)/CEW/SFLCL/20 dated 15.01.2020 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. For participation in that process, the petitioner filed both technical and financial bids as required in the two-bid system. During opening of the technical bids, the petitioner had observed serious deficiency in the tender documents uploaded by the respondent No.4. Hence, he had lodged the complaint without delay. According to the petitioner, Clause-4(iii) of the DNIT dated 15.01.2020 makes it mandatory that the no objection certificate from the owner of the building/premises along with the supporting documents duly attested shall be uploaded, but the respondent No.4 did not upload such no objection certificate from the owner of the building. On the contrary, he has submitted an affidavit sworn by one Janardhan Chakraborty on 06.02.2020, without the supporting documents viz. documents of ownership of the premises, rent or lease agreement for 3 [three] years [the period of settlement] with the owner of the building and other associated documents duly attested by the Notary. Thus, it has been contended by the petitioner that the essential term of the tender has not been confronted to, by the respondent No.4.

(3.) That apart, the petitioner has contended that the Clause 4 [ii] of the DNIT has also not been complied with. The said condition provides that a statement of immovable property along with supportive document [s] and current bank balance mentioning name of the bank and the account number to prove his/her financial ability to carry on the business liquor. A certificate from the concerned Bank Manager about the present bank balance of the bidder against the account number should also be given. In this regard, the petitioner has categorically asserted as follows: