SUDIP CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges to be qualified to participate in an e-tender floated by the respondent-Authorities for providing housekeeping and scavenging personnel for three years at the Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner participated in the pre-bid meeting but his name was not recorded. Having failed to obtain necessary clarifications in the said meeting, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. It is argued that the terms and conditions of the tender are contrary to public policy, inherently contradictory, impossible to perform and illegal.

(2.) It is pointed out that the invitation in the tender was for providing 214 + 1 (Supervisor) = 215 Housekeeping and Scavenging personnel. Thus, the number of Supervisors out of the 215 personnel sought was one. However, in the same breath it is provided at page 20 of the bid document that Supervisor in each shift should be posted for looking after the cleaning and housekeeping service, who in turn will report to the hospital authority regarding the performance on shift basis as per checklist. It is argued that the two clauses do not go together, since a 24-hour Supervisor's post is not possible for one person to fulfil. At least there have to be three shifts of eight hours, for each of which shift a Supervisor is to be posted, to report to the hospital authority on shift basis as per checklist. Since the tender document contemplates only one Supervisor, the terms are inherently contradictory and impossible to perform.

(3.) Whereas in Clause 26.4 it is provided that in case of tie, the tenderer will be selected by draw of lots, in Clause 3.6 it is stipulated that in case of more than one L-1 bidder, the provisions of a Memo dated October 29, 2021 would be attracted. However, the said Memo, annexed at page 88 of the writ petition, does not provide for draw of lots.