Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 349 (CAL)

Sudip Roy Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal

2003-07-15

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

body2003
Judgment The grievance of the petitioner in this application that the petitioner duly participated in a tender floated by the respondent authorities for construction of a road from Hanskhali to Aranghata. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the lowest bidder along with two other contractors in the tender process. The petitioner was invited to participate in the open tender on 3rd April, 2003 along with two other tenderers. The petitioner could not personally present in the said open tender on the apprehension of being physically assaulted by the local miscreants and sent his bid to Speed Post on 2nd April, 2003 containing the rate at wl:1ich the tender can be allotted in favour of the petitioner. The said letter was received by the authorities on 3rd April, 2003. 2. According to the petitioner, in the said bid the petitioner offered a rate which is 7% given by the respondent No.4, even then the tender of the respondent No. 4 was accepted by the authorities. Therefore, according to the petitioner, steps taken by the respondent authorities are illegal, wrongful arbitrary and in violation of all norms of law. 3. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the tender was opened at a place which is far away, where the petitioner cannot attend. 4. On the contrary, private-respondents appeared before me and submitted that the private-respondent participated in the open tender and gave his open bid in response to the Notice Inviting Tender. On 2nd January, 2003 the sealed tenders filed by the tenderers, were opened and at the time of opening of the tender the authority found that the following agencies quoted their rates as follows:- 1. M/s. Himalayan Construction - 0.2% below the specific period schedule attached with tender as the lowest rates. 2. Sudip Roy Chowdhury - "Do" 3. On 2nd January, 2003 the sealed tenders filed by the tenderers, were opened and at the time of opening of the tender the authority found that the following agencies quoted their rates as follows:- 1. M/s. Himalayan Construction - 0.2% below the specific period schedule attached with tender as the lowest rates. 2. Sudip Roy Chowdhury - "Do" 3. Nadia District Central Engineers Co-operative Society Ltd. - "Do" Since rates quoted by the participants were similar and identical, the authority initiated a tender exercise afresh and accordingly on 13th January, 2003 the Superintending Engineer issued a notice to all the six participants to offer their revised rates, both in figures and in words in sealed cover and to drop the same in the office tender box on 20th January, 2003 at 2.00 p.m. On 20th January, 2003 despite receipt of the notice for offering bid in a sealed cover, the writ petitioner did not participate in the said tender and after opening the bid it could be found that the respondent No.4 and Nadia District Central Engineers Co-operative Society Limited offered the lowest rate. Thereafter, matter was discussed by the authorities and authorities further decided to invite all the participants of the original tender to participate in another open bid and accordingly date was fixed on 3rd April, 2003 at 2.30 p.m. Notice was served upon all the original participants. Bharat Bainjya Eastern Pvt. Ltd., Nadia District Central Engineers Co-operative Society Ltd. and the respondent No.4 were present in the chamber of the Superintending Engineer for offering their bid. The writ petitioner was not present in the chamber of the Superintending Engineer. 4. Procedure for conducting an open bid is quite different than inviting offers by sealed cover. The authorities in its meeting dated 24th April, 2003 accepted the offer made by the petitioner and the Letter of Acceptance dated 2nd May, 2003 was received by the respondent No.4. Hence, according to the respondent No.4, the petitioner has no right to get any benefit at this stage. 5. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondent submitted that the open bid is quite different than that of the sealed cover. Hence he submitted that interim order should be vacated. 6. Mr. Hence, according to the respondent No.4, the petitioner has no right to get any benefit at this stage. 5. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondent submitted that the open bid is quite different than that of the sealed cover. Hence he submitted that interim order should be vacated. 6. Mr. Moitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State authorities submitted that the work is being done in the District of Nadia under the NABARD Scheme. The petitioner not only participated in the second bid, thereafter also did not participate in the open bid inspite of the notice was given to them. Hence, according to him, the petitioner has no right at this stage to come before the Court without participating in the tender and his further submission is that the steps taken by the authorities are illegal or arbitrary in nature. All the participants were given notice twice and in both the occasions the petitioner did not take steps to participate. Hence, he submitted that interim order should be vacated. 7. After hearing the parties and after analysing the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion authorities have acted in the matter which cannot be questioned by the Writ Court at this stage and is unreasonable. Steps taken by the authorities are reasonable as I have found that the petitioner got chance to bid thrice which is not denied by the parties before me. The petitioner got chance to present their bid twice. Even after getting such chance the petitioner did not participate in the tender. It is true that the second time also the petitioner did not give his bid. When the authorities call for the open bid, the petitioner only sent his sealed cover and gave his bid in my opinion, which cannot be treated as the petitioner participated in the tender. In an auction it is the duty of the person who wants to give his bid, must be present in person or through his representative. Any bid is given under a sealed cover cannot be treated as a bid of the said person in an auction and/or open bid. Hence in my opinion, there is no case has been made out by the petitioner in the petition to get any relief. All steps taken by the respondent authorities are reasonable and in accordance with law. Any bid is given under a sealed cover cannot be treated as a bid of the said person in an auction and/or open bid. Hence in my opinion, there is no case has been made out by the petitioner in the petition to get any relief. All steps taken by the respondent authorities are reasonable and in accordance with law. The authorities have acted reasonably in the matter. Hence, this application is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Let xerox certify copy of this order be given to all the parties on the usual undertaking.