DHIRENDRA CHANDRA BHATTA-CHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For procuring two different categories of bricks, Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department Western Division No. 1, Agartala, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (in short, 'NIT), dated 4.4.2011. With the NIT, a Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (in short, 'DNIT'), dated 4.4.2011, was also issued to the bidders. The petitioner herein submitted his tender and, on 25.4.2011, the tenders, including the one submitted by the petitioner, were opened. On opening of the tenders, it was found that the petitioner had quoted the lowest rate. After making necessary assessment, the tender issuing authority, namely, Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department Western Division No. 1, Agartala, called the petitioner, on 02.05.2011, for negotiation of the rate. The petitioner accordingly appeared on the date fixed, i.e., on 02.05.2011, and held negotiation with Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Western Division No. 1, Agartala, and, in furtherance thereof, a note was prepared. The petitioner declined to reduce rates further. After the negotiation with the petitioner stood closed, as mentioned above, the Executive Engineer aforementioned issued a notice, dated 11.5.2011, to all the bidders including the present petitioner informing them that due to 'unavoidable circumstances', the rates, quoted by the bidders, including the lowest one, against Mohanpur and Hezamura Block, were rejected. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender, the petitioner served a demand notice, dated 16.5.2011, upon the respondents urging them to issue supply order in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer aforementioned issued a fresh NIT, dated 20.5.2011, for procurement of the said category of bricks.

(2.) The cancellation of the tender by the notice, dated 11.05.2011, and the NIT, dated 20.5.2011, whereby tenders have been invited afresh, stand challenged in the present writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grounds of challenge being, broadly speaking, that cancellation of the tender and publication of the impugned tender are bad in law, the same being arbitrary, irrational and legally not sustainable.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. J. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents.