SUBRATA 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 Ranirbazar F.L. Shop for the year 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 only after 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 finalised. Surprisingly, in the relief it has been typed as under:

(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.5610-15/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 and financial bids. During opening of the technical bid in two bids system, 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 along with the supporting documents duly attested shall be uploaded but the respondent No.4 did not submit such no objection certificate from the owner of the building. On the contrary, he has submitted an affidavit sworn by Khela Rani Debnath on 05.02.2020, without the supporting documents viz. documents of ownership of the premises, rent or lease agreement for 3 years [the period of this settlement] associated with the owner of the building and other associated documents duly attested by the Notary. Thus, it has contended by the petitioner that the essential term of the tender has been grossly violated by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 even did not submit partnership agreement or deed showing that the respondent No.4 is a partner with the owner of the said premises which would be let out for the liquor shop. According to the petitioner, an affidavit cannot countence as substitute for no objection certificate from the owner and supporting documents, duly attested. It has not been disputed by the respondent No.4 that he has submitted the declaration affirmed by an affidavit by Khela Rani Debnath, duly authenticated by the Notary on 05.02.2020 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition], but executed on 01.02.2020. Despite the said violation of the term of the tender, the technical bid of the respondent No.4 has been accepted by the Collector of Excise, West Tripura District. The financial bid thereafter was assessed. In addition to those objections, the petitioner has raised other objections viz. that the Professional Tax Clearance [PTC] certificate as submitted by the respondent No.4 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] cannot be accepted as the valid PTC, inasmuch as the document that had been uploaded in the portal showed that it was not even signed by the respondent No.4. Thus, the authenticity of the said certificate was not established. The Collector of Excise, the respondent No.3 herein, should not have accepted the technical bid of the respondent No.4 as the essential term of the tender was not complied with. For purpose of illustration, the petitioner has brought one example from the tendering process for settlement of Mohanpur F.L. shop No.1 initiated by the same DNIT for the same tenure. The tender of the petitioner was not accepted as the tender reference number was not inserted in the bid. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that the same Collector of Excise cannot take a different stand by adopting inconsistent interpretation when a breach of Clause 4(iii) of the said DNIT is noticed. The petitioner filed, his complaint recording the said breach on 20.02.2020 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] where the petitioner had raised the only objection that the respondent No.4 has submitted 'his bid with insufficient papers and documents i.e. without any lease agreement or no any partnership agreement but there is no any paper regarding the partnership'. The petitioner requested the Collector of Excise to cancel the bid of the respondent No.4.

(3.) In Para-16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he had 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.