SUDHIR DEBNATH 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 Battala F.L. Shop No.4 for the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. The petitioner has also challenged the assessment of the Evaluation Committee made on 19.03.2020 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 on cancelling the technical bid of the respondent No.4, the tender for settlement of the said F.L. Shop for the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 be finalized.

(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 for the period as noted in response to the DNIT No.5580-85/F.XX-1(3)/CEW/SFLCL/20 dated 15.01.2020 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. The petitioner for participation in that process filed both technical bid and financial bid. During opening of the technical bid in two bids system of tendering under Rule 29(A) read with Rule 22 of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 as amended time to time, the petitioner has observed serious deficiency in the tender documents filed by the respondent No.4. The petitioner had lodged the complaint in respect of the technical bid of the respondent No.4 without delay. Initially he was assured that the technical bid of the respondent No.4 would be cancelled. According to the petitioner, Clause-4(iii) of the DNIT dated 15.01.2020 makes it mandatory that no objection certificate from the owner of the building along with supporting document, dully attested by the Notary should be submitted. But the respondent No.4 did not submit such no objection certificate from the owner of the building with supporting documents i.e. the ownership documents, such as registered sale deed, Khatian and the tenancy agreement etc. Those were even not uploaded with the affidavit sworn by the owner. A mere affidavit cannot substitute the no-objection certificate as asked for. The respondent No.4 did only upload a sworn affidavit of one Jhuma Rani Paul who signed the same on 01.02.2020. Later on the said declaration was notorized on 06.02.2020. But the supporting documents viz. documents of the ownership of the premises, rent or lease agreement for 3 years and other documents duly attested were not uploaded. Thus, it has been contended by the petitioner that the essential term of the tender has been grossly violated by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 did not submit partnership agreement or deed showing that the respondent No.4 is a partner with the owner as he stated 'to be the partner of the owner of the said premises' which would be let out for the liquor shop. According to the petitioner, an affidavit cannot be countenced as no objection certificate from the owner and supporting documents duly attested. It has not been disputed by the respondent No.4 that he has only submitted the declaration affirmed by affidavit by Jhuma Rani Paul which was attested by the Notary on 06.02.2020 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] but the said declaration was executed on 01.02.2020. Despite the said violation, the technical bid of the respondent No.4 has not been rejected by the Collector of Excise, West Tripura District. Finally, on consideration of the financial bid, the tender of the respondent No.4 was accepted. till 19.03.2020 and kept the technical bid of the respondent No.4 for opening and finalization of the technical bid due to be completed by 29.10.202.

(3.) In Para-16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he has come to know from a reliable source that the respondent No.3 would settle the said foreign liquor shop without attending the objection that he had raised.