MANNAN TRAVELS TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR Vs. DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st of April, 2009 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the award of the contract to Eureka Travels Club (Durgapur) (herein after referred to as respondent No. 4) has been upheld.

(2.) A notice inviting tenders was issued by Durgapur Projects Limited (herein after referred to respondent No. 1) for transport facilities with the fleet of at least (Seven) buses and (one) luxury mini-bus. These buses were to be engaged for transporting the workers of respondent No. 1 from their residences to the work place and their school going children to their respective schools. The last date for receipt of tenders was 30th of September, 2008. Seven parties including the writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their tenders. The tender had to be submitted in four parts as follows :

(3.) Two committees were formed namely, Tender Opening Committee (TOC) for opening tenders and Tender Consideration Committee (TCC) for considering, evaluating, processing and completing the intended tender process. At the pre-bid discussions on 22nd September, 2008, one of the conditions with regard to the third part were relaxed. In the original tender it was provided that the bidder should have deployed minimum four members of big buses in a single contract for a minimum period of 12 months in Government/public sector unit/reputed private concern within last three years. The period of 12 months was reduced to six months. Part II of the tender was opened on 30th of September, 2008 in presence of all the parties. All the seven parties successfully completed the second part. Third part of the tender was opened on 11th of November, 2008. All the parties had been invited to attend the third stage of tender opening through identical notices dated 4.11.2008. This notice was received by the appellants on 5th of November, 2008. The appellants participated in the tender opening meeting on 11.11.2008. No objection was raised by him with regard to the ineligibility of any of the tenders. However by letter dated 12.11.2008 the appellants raised an issue that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for participation in the tender. In a written objection it was stated that respondent No. 4 firm has not got the required credentials and are mere Ticket Booking Agent of South Bengal Transport Corporation. They have nothing to do with the running of Contract Carriage Buses in any manner, therefore, did not satisfy the condition that "the bidder should have minimum 4 (four) big buses in a single/multiple contract for a minimum period of 6 months in Government /PSU/ Reputed Private Organization within last 03 years." It was stated that the objection may be duly considered. By notice dated 19th of November, 2008 the appellants were invited to be present at the time of opening of the fourth parts that is, price bid on 22nd of November, 2008. The appellants attended the opening of the fourth part of the tender. It came as a complete surprise to the appellants that respondent No. 4 was also present in the meeting. The appellants, therefore, submitted an objection against the participation of respondent No. 4 in part four. The appellants also stated that its participation should be treated "with protest and without prejudice to our rights and contention and subject to the further step or steps to be taken in the matter". After opening the price bid it appears that respondent No. 4 was declared as the lowest bidder (L1) whereas the appellants were declared 2nd lowest bidder (L-2). The contract was duly awarded to respondent No. 4. This was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition basically on the ground that respondent No. 4 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and its bid ought to have been rejected, at the opening of the second part. Under any circumstances the bid should have been rejected after opening the third stage. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire matter dismissed the writ petition.