R N GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution a very short but interesting point has come up for decision by this Court. In this regard I have heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U. B. Saha, the learned senior Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Nath, Advocate for the State-Respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is a Class II enlisted contractor under the Tripura State Public Works Department and he has been executing several contract works under the respondent-Government. In response to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14-9-1999 (Annexure-3) and dated 1-10-1999 (Annexure-4) for certain works shown in the N.I.T. the petitioner submitted his tenders in respect of category No. 3 of NIT dated 14-9-1999 and category No. 1 of NIT dated 1-10-1999. The tenders were submitted in the printed forms which were obtained from the office. The concerned works for which the petitioner has applied for are indicated as below :-In respect of :

(3.) Other contractors also submitted their respective tenders. It is the case of the petitioner that on opening of the tenders, the rates quoted by the petitioner was found to be lowest in respect of both the works. But no work order was issued to the petitioner as the authority concerned have not accepted the tenders submitted by the petitioner and according to the authority concerned both the tenders of the petitioner were found to be informal and the reason for the same being that the petitioner had not put his signature in full which is a requirement under the terms of the N.I.T. i.e. according to the authority concerned the petitioner was required to put his full signature on every page of the rate schedule. But the petitioner has given his signature as "R. N. Ghosh."