CHANDAN SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the existing contractor who has been providing cleaning and housekeeping staff to the Midnapore Medical College & Hospital in Paschim Medinipore, West Bengal. The respondent no. 7, i.e., the Medical Superintendent of the said hospital published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) (2nd call) inviting bids for cleaning/scavenging/housekeeping services from bona fide interested bidders to provide 208 workers and one supervisor totalling to 209, for three years subject to renewal at the end of each year on satisfactory performance by bidders. The petitioner participated in the said NIT No.2075 dated February 24, 2024 and was one of the L-1 bidders. The authority cancelled the tender vide order dated June 7, 2024 on the following ground:-

(2.) The petitioner has challenged such cancellation as also further action of the authority in issuing another tender notice vide NIT No. 6049 dated June 14, 2024. For the on-line bid submission, the closing date as per the 3rd NIT is July 9, 2024 at 4 pm. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation on the following grounds:-

(3.) Mr. Pal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority could not have gone beyond the provisions of the said NIT and added an additional clause to the existing clauses thereby deciding unilaterally to cancel the bids submitted. The ground that the bids were null and negative and could not be accepted, was de hors the NIT. It is further contended that the tender document does not contain any definition clause. What exactly the authority meant by null/negative, was not available from the tender document. The said expression was foreign to the NIT and has been imported by the authority only to cancel the bids, for mala fide reasons. It is next contended that in other contracts, the petitioner had been allowed to perform without any management fee. Such contracts were awarded by the Health and Family Welfare Department and the present tendering authority who had cancelled the NIT No. 2075 also belonged to the same department of the government. Only because the tendering authority was different, that should not itself be a reason for the respondent no. 7 to depart from the norms prevalent in by the Health Department. When the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Swasthya Bhawan permitted the petitioner to quote 'zero' management fee, there was no reason why the L-1 bidders who were successful in NIT No. 2075 could not be selected, on the basis of drawal of lots, even if they had quoted zero management fee. Reference is made to a decision of this court where the issue as to whether reduced rates or enhanced rates could be permitted by two different wings of the same department, had been decided. It is submitted that the High Court had decided that the tendering authority under the same department should follow the same standard of rates, unless there was a basis for deviation. According to Mr. Pal, the authority changed the rules of the game after the entire bidding process was complete.