GOUTAM GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed on 6/12/2022 in W.P.A. No. 3239 of 2022 (Goutam Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') has filed this Intra Court appeal. By the impugned judgement and order learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Application.

(2.) In order to appreciate the appeal in its proper perspective we consider it expedient to indicate the facts in brief.

(3.) In the wake of notice by advertisement being NIT No. 4050/TN- 2022, published in the official website of the Department of Correctional Administration, Directorate of Correctional Services, Government of West Bengal as issued by Inspector General of Correctional Services, West Bengal, regarding supply of dietary articles for the period from 1/10/2022 to 31/3/2023 for nine Correctional Homes of the State of West Bengal, the petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted required documents on 29/9/2022. Though schedule date for opening of Technical bid document was 30/9/2022, the concerned authority did not open such Technical bid. The participants were also not informed about the reason for delay. On 12/10/2022 at about 11.43 a.m. the Technical bid was opened and it was found that in all 7 legal entity participated in the e-tender, except R.S. Bajaj Tea Company, the Technical bid of rest six participants were found to be proper by the authority, albeit the fact that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 did not have the requisite qualification to cross the threshold. The respondent no. 4 obtained UDYAM registration certificate by MSME Department on 14/9/2014 indicating with manufacturing as its major activity. The respondent no. 4 did not provide any trade license in support of such manufacturing activity in terms of Clause 6 Cover 4 of the Technical bid package but was given the benefit as provided in Clause 7 (g) (Evaluation of tenders) of an UDYAM certificate holder under MSME. Respondent no. 4 got undue exemption from depositing earnest money as well as benefit of 15% price preference in connection with rate of an article. Neither the respondent no. 4 nor respondent no. 5 was eligible to take part in the e-tender as food service contractor because manufacturing was the major activity of both of them at the relevant point of time. They could not have participated in the financial bid without depositing the earnest money. The petitioner became the second lowest bidder: Had there been proper assessment of tender documents, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 would have been declared disqualified and the petitioner would become eligible L1 bidder. According to petitioner, respondent nos. 4 and 5 became L1 bidder as the authority concerned overlooked with mala-fide intention and for extraneous consideration. Since respondent nos. 4 and 5 did not deposit the earnest money and necessary documents regarding manufacturing plant packaging unit, deployment of labours, their tender documents ought to have been rejected by the concerned authority. By filling the application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prayed for appropriate order towards cancellation and or revocation of financial bid dtd. 7/11/2022 and work order issued on 16/11/2022 and also for revocation of the whole e-tender process among other relief.