MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pleadings that the respective parties have filed reveal a printing error in the form of offer submitted by the petitioner costing it a fortune and securing windfall gains for the respondent 9. While it is the contention of the petitioner that the printing error was insignificant and thus it ought to have been given an opportunity to correct it, or at least approached for ascertaining whether it would abide by the total bid price quoted by it, the official respondents and the respondent 9 are emphatic in their stand that the terms of the tender notice were scrupulously followed and there has been no arbitrariness in the impugned State action, thereby warranting dismissal of the writ petition.

(2.) To appreciate the arguments made by learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be necessary to note the factual scenario and then to decide which of the rival claims deserves acceptance.

(3.) The Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners (hereafter the HRBC), respondent 2, is a body created by the Hooghly River Bridge Act, 1969 and vested with powers to carry out the provisions thereof. For the purpose of collection of toll from vehicles utilising Vidyasagar Setu to cross the river Hooghly, the HRBC had issued tender notice for appointment of a toll collection agent in 2011. This was followed by a second tender notice dated April 9, 2012. Since only two parties had expressed interest, the Chairman of the HRBC (the respondent 4) directed issuance of re-tender notice. Notice dated May 21, 2012 was issued. The HRBC was of the view that it would not be feasible to proceed further, since the highest bid that emerged was below the reserve price. Although the petitioner has alleged that the respondent 9 was not qualified in terms thereof to participate in the process and, thus, had been disqualified at the technical bid stage, and the HRBC with a view to favour it had abandoned the earlier processes and initiated fresh process, being the fourth in succession (vide notice inviting tender dated July 10, 2012) to afford it an opportunity to participate by relaxing the terms and conditions incorporated in the earlier notices, no opinion is expressed since I am of the view that it is not necessary for a decision on this writ petition.