AKA LOGISTIC PVT LTD Vs. DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tender notice dated 23rd February, 2013 was questioned in the writ application filed before the Single Bench. The appellant had questioned the legality of the clause 2(ii)(h) of the notice inviting tender, the same is held to be unconstitutional and it has ordered to be deleted. At the same time it has been ordered by the Single Bench that proceedings pursuant to the earlier N.I.T. shall be of no effect. Durgapur Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.L.') shall be at liberty to invite fresh tenders. It has also been observed that prospective bidders may be required to submit undertaking in the format of affidavit drawn in terms of Annexure-VI. D.P.L. may consider the desirability of including 'shortage minimisation' in the 'work description' and also in the 'qualifying requirements', since it was included in the scope of work. The appellant M/s. AKA Logistic Pvt. Ltd. has questioned the legality of the part of the order with respect to inviting fresh tenders on the ground of quashment of clause 2(ii)(h) of the N.I.T. would not entail into invitation of fresh tender after quashment of the condition. D.P.L. ought to have been directed to proceed further to finalize the tender on the basis of the financial bids received pursuant to the aforesaid N.I.T.

(2.) It is also submitted that in the latter portion of paragraph 37 of the impugned order observations have been made that prospective bidders may be required to submit undertaking in the format of affidavit drawn in terms of Annexure VI. D.P.L. may consider the desirability of including 'shortage minimisation' in the 'work description' and also in the 'qualifying requirements', since it was included in the scope of work.

(3.) Shri Samit Talukder, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that considering the nature of Clause 2(ii)(h) which related to the pendency of legal proceedings as against the Government/Public Sector Undertaking/Public Sector Enterprise relating to handling of coal in West Bengal for a period of three years was not such to quash the entire process of the N.I.T. The respondents could have proceeded further to finalise the tenders on the basis of financial bids of the rival tenderers. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that in the petition preferred by the appellant M/s. AKA Logistic Private Limited in W.P. 9166(W) of 2012 no relief was sought for quashment of the entire N.I.T.; whereas the said relief was sought for in W.P. 11410(W) of 2012 which has not been entertained and the same relief claimed in the aforesaid writ petition for quashment of entire N.I.T. has been granted. Thus, the order is illegal while dismissing the writ petition being W.P. 11410(W) of 2012, the relief prayed for quashment of the entire N.I.T. dated February 23, 2012 has been granted.