MADHUSUDAN ROUT Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER EAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Application for a direction to the opposite parties to the settle the contract with him pursuant to tender call notice in Annexure -1 and direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 not to settle the contract with the Opposite Party No. 5.

(2.) CASE of the petition is the Opposite Party No. 2 invited sealed tender on 23.3.2004 for storage and safe custody of bicycles including two wheelers in the Railway premises at Cuttack Railway Station for a period of three years. The Tender Notice indicated that the intending bidders should submitted their offers along with earnest money of Rs. 20,974/ - and to fulfil all other conditions while submitting tender. The tender was in twos parts, i.e., Technical Bid (Packet -A) and Financial Bid (Packet -B). The Technical Bid relates to eligibility such as, solvency, experience, etc. and the Financial Bid relates to the rates of offer. Further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said Tender Call Notice he submitted his bids both Technical and Financial. The day the Technical Bids were opened the tender submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and therefore his Financial Bid was not opened. Specific case of the petitioner is that his offer is much more than that of the Opposite Party No. 5 and therefore the contract should be settled with him. - -

(3.) ANNEXURE -1 is the Tender Call Notice. Said Tender Call Notice clearly specifies that the tender papers must accompany current solvency certificate from revenue authorities or from any Nationalized Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner has not furnished solvency certificate. It was contended by Sri Rout that earlier Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was alive and that could be taken as solvency and on that ground his bid should not have been rejected. In support of such contention Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Podar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 1579. Referring to the said decision it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that every term of Tender Call Notice need not be literally complied with. We have pursued the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. One of the tender conditions in the case was that the earnest money has to be deposited only by cash or by demand draft drawn on State Bank of India. The petitioner in the said case had furnished a cheque of the Union Bank of India and on that ground alone his offer was rejected. The Apex Court held that as per the terms of the auction notice the participant has to furnish earnest money. Therefore, whether it is made by cash or by cheque drawn on State Bank of India or Union Bank of India make no difference. In the case in hand, solvency is one of the important factors for operating bicycle/two wheeler stand and in absence of solvency certificate it may be difficult on the part of the opposite parties to assess as to whether the petitioner would be in a position to run a bicycle/two wheeler stand or not. Therefore, the facts of the decision of the Apex Court have no application to the present case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon two other decisions reported in AIR 1990 SC 958 and the other reported in AIR 1984 Bombay 351. On reading of those two decisions also we are of the view that on facts the same are not applicable to the present case. In the case of Rounaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction and Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 393, the Apex Court has laid down limitation of the Court in interfering in such matters and we are of the view that the petitioner having not furnished solvency certificate as required under the Tender Call Notice his Technical Bid was rightly rejected.