HYUNDAI CORPORATION Vs. SUMIKIN BUSSAN CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This leave petition has been Field against the judgment and order of 4th June, 2001 by a division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 7 of 2001 making the Rule absolute declaring Memo No. CPA/PMU (EQPT)/P-120 (part-1/372) dated 1-1-2001 (Annexure D to the writ petition) to have been made without lawful authority and the result of the price bid opened on 21st September, 2000 be declared accepting the decision by the Chittagong Port Authority in its board Meetings No. 8823 dated 13th September, 2000.

(2.) Facts, in short, are that Chittagong Port Authority (respondent No. 2) floated tender on 14-1-2000 fixing 19th June as the last date of dropping bid for supply of four units of Rail mounted Quay Gantry Cranes with necessary spare parts and service as per specification of the bidding documents. The Bidder or bidders were required to be of eligible member countries of Asian Development Bank with which Bangladesh has commercial relation. The petitioner and 6 others dropped their responsive bid in "two-envelope system one for technical bid and another for price bid. Technical bid was opened on 20th June, 2000 and the same were examined by Technical Evaluation committee which found the petitioner, respondent Nos 1, 9 and another substantially responsive. The Evaluation Committee submitted its report on 6th August, 2000. The report of the Technical Evaluation Committee was examined by Supervising Committee and the said committee submitted its report on 7th September,2000 recommending respondent Nos. 1, 9 and another as being responsive and the petitioner was considered non-responsive. The Board of Chittagong Port Authority, hereinafter referred to as the board, in its meeting held on 13th September,2000 took resolution No. 8823 declaring the three bidders which were found responsive by the Supervising Committee as responsive. In the light of the decision of the Board letters were issued to the responsive bidders informing them 21 September, 2000 as the date for opening of price bid and the price bid of the respective bidders were opened on that date. On 8th July, 2000 petitioner addressed a letter to the Chittagong Port Authority making certain clarification as to their bid proposal. The Board thereafter by its resolution No. 8889 dated 18th December, 2000 revised its earlier decision as to the petitioner being non-responsive and thereupon declared petitioner as responsive in technical bid. On 1st January, 2001 Chittagong Port Authority wrote a letter (Annexure-D to the Writ Petition) to the petitioner intimating that on l0th January, 2001 his price bid would be opened.

(3.) In the background of the said facts respondent No. 1 moved the High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction and obtained Rule challenging legality of the Board's decision dated 18th December, 2000 revising its earlier decision dated 13th September, 2000 and thereupon intimating the petitioner date of opening of its price bid contending that as per terms of the tender if a bidder is found responsive on its scrutiny of technical bid only then price bid of the said responsive bidder would be open and in the case of the petitioner Technical Evaluation Committee and the Supervising Committee have found the petitioner non-responsive and that the Board also declared the petitioner non-responsive and thereupon price bid of the respective bidders having already opened any decision on revising the earlier decision finding the petitioner responsive for opening of the technical bid as well as price bid being contrary to the terms of the tender, the decision of the Chittagong Port Authority as communicated by its letter dated 1st January, 2001 to the petitioner was illegal and that as per terms of the tender Chittagong Port Authority is legally bound to give effect to its decision dated 13th September, 2000.