GAYATRI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (a participating tenderer) questioned the selection of the fifth respondent as the successful tenderer in the process initiated by notice dated November 25th, 2002. The short question in the case is whether the fifth respondent was eligible to participate in the process.

(2.) The notice inviting tender (it was mail motor contract) specifically mentioned that the vehicle should be one not having already run more than one lakh kilometers and crossing the age of five. The admitted position is that the vehicle sought to be placed by the fifth respondent was more than five years old. Though the work order was given, he could not work, since this case was pending. The department continued to get the work done by the erstwhile tenderer.

(3.) Counsel for the department submits that the word 'and' appearing in fifth line of page one of the tender notice was to be read as 'or'. He says that the word 'and' had come to be inserted because of a printing error. I do not find any merit in this afterthought argument. If there was really a printing error, the department was at liberty to issue appropriate notice correcting it. No such step was taken.