NILADRI GHOSH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, ESI HOSPITALS, ULUBERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action taken by the respondent authorities appears to be completely arbitrary and without any basis. Following a tender notice issued by the ESI Hospital, Uluberia, the petitioner applied for two of the works thereunder: the repair and maintenance of civil works for the hospital and the repair and maintenance of civil works for the quarters and the OPD. The petitioner complains of the petitioner's bidj having been wrongfully disqualified and the financial bid not having been considered.

(2.) Pursuant to a previous direction, the records have been carried to Court and the petitioner's financial bid has been opened in Court upon the sealed envelope being produced.

(3.) The respondent authorities have produced a copy of the comparative table listing the documents furnished by the tenderers. It is evident that the petitioner, who applied in the business name of C.B. Ritam, did not submit any ESI or EPF registration document, any material to show previous experience of work in ESI or government hospitals or any labour license. From the decision of May 31, 2013 of the tender selection committee it is evident that since the petitioner failed to submit any material to demonstrate work experience in ESI or government hospitals, ESI and EPF registration documents and registration certificates pertaining to labour license and license relating to skilled workers, the tender selection committee "unanimously decided to cancel the said tender," It is in such circumstances that the petitioner's financial bid was not opened. One Ramesh Maity, the added respondent No. 3, had also failed to furnish any ESI registration certificate or labour license or registration certificate of the agency. However, the tender selection committee awarded the civil work for the hospital to the added respondent No. 3 "with the condition that they will submit the required certificates... within one month of offer letter." Work for the quarters and the DPD was awarded to the added respondent No. 4, which was found to have submitted all requisite documents and had also been found to have quoted the lowest for such work.