JUDGMENT AND ORDER S. Talapatra J. By means of the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016, the petitioner has challenged the procedure followed by the respondents in floating the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.2/22-W(C)/2015-16, dated Nil (Annexure-P/1 to the said writ petition) and urged for quashing the said NIT and for floating a fresh NIT as the petitioner has been deprived of participating the tender process for lack of knowledge, which is entirely attributable to the wrongful procedure followed by the respondents. 2. Similarly, by means of the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016, the petitioner has challenged the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.2/22-W(A)/2015-16, dated Nil (Annexure-P/2 to the said writ petition) for following the wrongful procedure in floating the NIT whereby the petitioner was deprived of participating the tender process for lack of knowledge, which is entirely attributable to the said action of the respondents. 3. Even though the works covered by the impugned NITs are different but the grounds, even the reliefs as prayed for, are not different. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions have been taken up for disposal by a common judgment. 4. By the NIT No.2/22-W(C)/2015-16 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016), the Archaeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, invited item rate tender from the contractors, approved and registered by the CPWD/PWD/MES/Railways and other Government/Semi Government Department with valid license having two years experience of working with the Archaeological Survey of India or at any Heritage sites for execution of work as per specification. The work under the said NIT (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016), has been described as under : Name of work Estimated cost Date of opening Remarks SR (Plan) to Shyamsundar Tilla at Pillak, South Tripura, Tripura (2015-16) Rs.22,89,282/- 19.02.2016 Execution of work as per specifications. 5. Similarly, by the NIT No.2/22-W(A)/2015-16 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016), the Archaeological Survey of India, Guwahati Circle, invited item rate tender, from the contractors approved and registered by the CPWD/PWD/MES/Railways and other Government/Semi Government Department with valid license having two years experience of working with the Archaeological Survey of India or at any Heritage sites for execution of work as per specification. The work under the said NIT (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016), has been described as under : Name of work Estimated cost Date of opening Remarks SR (Plan) to Bhubaneswari Temple at Udaipur, Tripura (2015-16) Rs.4,61,612/- 15.02.2016 Execution of work and supply of materials as per specification. 6. By the order dated 10.03.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.173/2016, this court observed as under : "One of the conditions in the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) which is challenged is that the person submitting the tender should have two years experience of working with the Archaeological Survey of India or at any Heritage site. We can only entertain this petition on behalf of the petitioner if he satisfies us that he was himself eligible to submit a tender. There is nothing in the petition to show that the petitioner has two years working experience with the Archaeological Survey of India or at any Heritage site. List on 17th March, 2016 by which time the petitioner may file additional affidavit stating whether he has ever worked with the Archaeological Survey of India and if so, he shall set out the details of the work along with a copy of the contract or if he has worked with any other Heritage site he may mention the Heritage site and also the details of the work. In case this is not done the petition shall be rejected as not maintainable." 7. In terms of the said order dated 10.03.2016, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.173/2016 filed an additional affidavit producing before this court one work order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure-P/6 to the said additional affidavit), which was issued in favour of one Chitranjan Routray of Bhubaneswar. But a correspondence dated 04.01.2016 addressed to the Superintending Archaeologist (Annexure-P/7 to the said additional affidavit), has also been produced, perhaps to refer the following lines to demonstrate that the petitioner executed some works under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) : "As you are aware due to inclemency weather and continues rain fall in that region, the work hampered for a period of nearly four months. Secondly, due to my sudden illness of heart problem and was under treatment at Bhubaneswar for which my health could not permit me to take long journey from Bhubaneswar to Tripura frequently. Secondly, due to my sudden illness of heart problem and was under treatment at Bhubaneswar for which my health could not permit me to take long journey from Bhubaneswar to Tripura frequently. However, I had to engage experienced persons in that line namely Sri Pradeep Saha, Sri Badal Pal, Sri Shanti Bhusan Saha and Sri Rajesh Das of local Tripura region to look after the said work and complete as early as possible." 8. From the communication dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure-P/8 to the additional affidavit in W.P.(C) No.173/2016), it has surfaced that the persons named in the said communication dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure-P/7 to the additional affidavit in W.P.(C) No.173/2016) were informed by the ASI, Guwahati Circle that the contractor in whose favour the work order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure-P/6 to the additional affidavit in W.P.(C) No.173/2016) was issued, has been blacklisted by the ASI. That apart, one document, filed by the petitioner, namely Sri Rajesh Das in W.P.(C) No.173/2016, was also produced with the said additional affidavit for showing that he had been given the work order bearing No. F.12(6)EEBSL/10744-48 dated 06.08.2014, namely "Construction of Welcome gate for celebrating the Heritage of Bhadra Mela at Kasba Kalibari during the year 2014", which had however been issued by the Government of Tripura, Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Annexure-P/5 to the additional affidavit in W.P.(C) No.173/2016). 9. In both the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016 and W.P.(C) No.244/2016, to challenge the action of the respondents in floating those tenders, the grounds those have been resorted to by the petitioners may briefly be noted. 10. Admittedly, in view of clause (17.1) of the CPWD Works Manual 2012, for the works estimated to cost more than Rs. 5 lakhs, a brief advertisement inviting tenders should invariably be inserted in the press in the classified category. Clause 17.1 of the CPWD Works Manual 2012 reads as under : "17.1. Wide Publicity (1) Wide publicity should be given to the Notice Inviting Tenders (Form CPWD 6). Tenders must be invited in the most open and public manner possible, by advertisement in the website/press and by notice in English/Hindi and the written language of the District. A copy of the notice should be sent to the Central PWD Divisions, Zonal Office, Circle Office, operating at the station of the work and headquarters of the Divisional Office. Tenders must be invited in the most open and public manner possible, by advertisement in the website/press and by notice in English/Hindi and the written language of the District. A copy of the notice should be sent to the Central PWD Divisions, Zonal Office, Circle Office, operating at the station of the work and headquarters of the Divisional Office. The Notice may also be sent to the Local Municipality, Collectors Office, and the state PWD Divisions for works in places where there are not enough CPWD registered contractors. (2) Notices for all the works, irrespective of their value, shall be posted in the CPWD Website. Proof thereof in the form of a print out of NIT details and the tender ID no. from the webpage shall be kept on record. In view of this requirement, sending of NIT/NIQ's to the contractors' Association is dispensed with. (3) In respect of works estimated to cost more than Rs.5 lakhs, a brief advertisement inviting tenders should invariably be inserted in the press in the classified category. (4) Advertisement for Notice Inviting Tenders should be sent to the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for insertion in the press. Sometimes, tenders may have to be invited for different works by the same Division at the same time, or at short intervals of one or two days. In such cases, it is not desirable to send separate press advertisements for each work, and as far as possible composite advertisements in the prescribed format should be sent to avoid unnecessary expenditure on advertisement. (5) In urgent cases, the authority competent to approve the NIT may, for recorded reasons, decide to send the advertisement of tenders directly to Press. In such cases the newspaper bills shall also be settled by the CPWD. (6) Draft specimen of Press Notice to be issued as a combined Advertisement in Newspaper is given as Appendix 19A, Specimen Press Notice forming part of NIT and to be posted on website is given in appendix 19B (Added vide OM/MAN/221)." Further, in view of clause (17.5) of the CPWD Works Manual 2012, for the works estimated to cost between Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 2 crores, for purpose of publicity of the tenders, the procedure required to be followed is as under : "17.5. 20 lakhs to Rs. 2 crores, for purpose of publicity of the tenders, the procedure required to be followed is as under : "17.5. Time limit for Publicity of Tenders (1) The following time limits between the date of publication of tender on web site or press whichever is earlier and the date of receipt of the tenders are desirable : (i) 7 days in the case of works with estimated cost put to tender upto Rs.20 lakhs (ii) 10 days in the case of works with estimated cost put to tender between Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.2 crores (iii) 14 days in the case of works with estimated cost put to tender more than Rs.2 crores (2) The above time limits may be varied at the discretion of the NIT approving authority keeping in view the exigencies of work." 11. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid clauses mandate for publication of tender either on website or in the press. If clause (17.1) is read with clause (17.5) of the CPWD Works Manual 2012, it would require the respondents to publish the NIT in the press by providing at least ten clear days for submission of tender, but the same was not followed in the procedure under challenge. The said NITs were not published in any newspaper. According to the petitioners, the said NITs were uploaded in the website on 11.02.2016 at 3.00 pm and the last date for submission of the tenders was till 1430 hours of 19.02.2016, which shows that in lieu of ten days, only eight days were provided for submission of the tenders. No adequate publicity had been there and as such the petitioners could not participate in the said tender process. 12. By filing the counter-affidavits, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts inasmuch as all the NITs were published in the North-east edition of the Telegraph dated 10.02.2016 and on the same day i.e. 10.02.2016 the NITs were uploaded in the website. According to the respondents, both the petitioners do not have the eligibility to participate in the said tender process as they never executed any work under the ASI or in any heritage sites, at least no such record has been produced with the writ petition. 13. According to the respondents, both the petitioners do not have the eligibility to participate in the said tender process as they never executed any work under the ASI or in any heritage sites, at least no such record has been produced with the writ petition. 13. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.244/2016, it has been categorically asserted that against the NIT bearing No.2/22-W(C)/2015-16 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016), the tenders were opened on 19.02.2016 and the work orders were issued on 03.03.2016 in favour of one Prasanta Saha, a Government Registered Contractor and he had been paid a running bill of Rs. 4,88,271 on 31.03.2016 for the work he executed by that time. 14. The estimated cost for the work described in the NIT bearing No.2/22-W(A)/2015-16 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016), namely "SR (Plan) to Bhubaneswari Temple at Udaipur, Tripura (2015-16)" was Rs. 4,61,612. As a result, the respondents contended that as the work was estimated less than Rs. 5 lakhs it was not advertised in the print media, but uploaded only in the ASI Guwahati Circle website. Only in respect of the work estimated to cost more than Rs. 5 lakhs, brief advertisement inviting tender should invariably be inserted in the press in the classified category in terms of clause (17.3) of the CPWD Works Manual 2012 and the time limit for publicity for such work with estimated cost upto Rs. 20 lakh is seven days and the respondents had provided seven days for such publicity. 15. The respondents have categorically asserted that the petitioner in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016 did not have any eligibility in executing the work, as noted in the NIT (Annexure-P/2 to the said writ petition). However, the respondents in their counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.244/2016, has candidly admitted that, "due to overload of work and shortage of staff the publication to the vernacular newspaper was left-out. Besides the above, the same was advertised on the Guwahati Circle's website on 10.02.2016 and on ASI portal on 11.02.2016 (Annexure-4) and it was advertised on the notice board of this office and the concerned Sub-circle office as per the CPWD manual." 16. It is a clear admission that there was no publication of the NIT in a vernacular newspaper (the written language of the District). It is a clear admission that there was no publication of the NIT in a vernacular newspaper (the written language of the District). However, it appears that, from the day of publication of the NIT in the Telegraph till the day of opening, 10(ten) days as required by clause 17.5(ii) of the CPWD Works Manual 2012, was not provided. 17. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the objection as raised by the respondents in respect of the eligibility of the petitioners cannot be sustained inasmuch as they had done some works in the heritage sites. From the communications dated 21.12.2012, 21.05.2015, 31.05.2013, 07.04.2015 and 27.03.2014 (Annexure-P/3 collectively to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016), it is apparent that the petitioner claimed to have done some works under the Archaeological Survey of India. 18. However, Mr. H. Deb, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, has submitted with emphasis that the works as referred by the petitioners are not related to the ASI or to such works which have referred in the NITs. 19. From a keen reading of the records it appears that two years experience as sought for, was primarily for working with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) or at any heritage site. As such, the petitioner in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016, was not eligible in participating in the tender process, inasmuch as the work he had assigned was not related to him. Similarly, the petitioner in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.173/2016, despite the order dated 10.03.2016 in the said writ petition, could not produce any document to show that he had worked with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) or executed work in any heritage site. Construction of a welcome gate cannot be treated as the execution of work in the heritage site, having due regard to the meaning and extent of the clause in this regard. Thus, the petitioners in the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016 and W.P.(C) No.173/2016 lack the legal standing to maintain the writ petition. As such, the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016 and W.P.(C) No.173/2016 are dismissed as not maintainable. 20. Thus, the petitioners in the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016 and W.P.(C) No.173/2016 lack the legal standing to maintain the writ petition. As such, the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.244/2016 and W.P.(C) No.173/2016 are dismissed as not maintainable. 20. Even though this court has clearly expressed that it is not inclined to interfere with the tender process vide the impugned NITs, but is constrained to observe that the respondents had failed to observe the procedures as laid down in the CPWD Works Manual 2012 in giving publicity of the tender and maintaining the time limit for publicity of the tender. 21. Having regard to that aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents that in future while floating the tender/s for any work or supply, they shall invariably observe the procedures as laid down in the CPWD Works Manual 2012 particularly, in giving wide publicity of the tender and in maintaining the time limit for publicity. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.