BIMAL ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the rejection of the petitioner's bid by the respondent authorities and also questions the basis for accepting the bid made by the private respondent No. 4. The work involved is the setting up of drainage infrastructure at the Teesta Barrage.

(2.) The petitioner admits that one of the non-statutory documents that the petitioner was required to submit along with the on-line bid was not scanned and submitted. According to the petitioner, in view of Clauses 6.1(iv) and 6.3(ii), the respondent authorities or the tender committee ought to have accepted the hard copy of the document supplied by the petitioner immediately after the mistake was discovered. There is a minor disagreement as to whether the mistake was discovered by the petitioner or the mistake was pointed out on behalf of the tender committee and thereafter the petitioner attempted to rectify the same, but nothing turns on such aspect of the matter.

(3.) The tender terms stipulate that all documents sought should be submitted. Clause 3.2B specifies in unequivocal terms that the failure to submit any of the documents referred to in the clause "will render the tender liable to summary rejection." The professional tax clearance certificate that the petitioner had submitted was not the latest document. The petitioner attempted to forward a copy of the later document under cover of a letter subsequent to the time expiring for the submission of the bid. By such time the bids had been opened. The petitioner contends that it was so minor a mistake that the respondent authorities ought to have accepted the document and allowed the petitioner's bid to progress to the financial stage.