Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 760
JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J.
Gayatri Banerjee
versus
State of W.B. and Ors.
W. P. No. 4081 (W) of 2003
Decided on : 4 -12 -2006
S. K. Halder and Arunabha Jana, for Petitioner; Ahi Bhusan Chakraborty (for No. 5) and D. S. Mishra (for Nos. 1 to 4), for Respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the eligibility criteria specified in the notice inviting tender and rejected the department's attempt to reinterpret the criteria based on a claimed printing error.
Headnote:
Tenderer Eligibility - Notice Inviting Tender - Vehicle Age and Mileage Criteria
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the selection of the fifth respondent as the successful tenderer based on the eligibility criteria specified in the notice inviting tender, which required the vehicle to be less than five years old and not have run more than one lakh kilometers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fifth respondent's vehicle was more than five years old, contrary to the specified criteria, and therefore wrongfully selected by the department. The court set aside the selection of the fifth respondent and allowed the department to initiate a fresh tender process.
Issues: The key issue was whether the fifth respondent was eligible to participate in the tender process based on the specified vehicle age and mileage criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the notice inviting tender and held that the word 'and' in the criteria should not be read as 'or', rejecting the department's argument of a printing error. The court emphasized that the fifth respondent's subsequent acquisition of a new vehicle did not make him eligible, as his vehicle at the time of participation was more than five years old.
Final Decision: The court set aside the selection of the fifth respondent and allowed the department to initiate a fresh tender process, with no order for costs in the case.
2. The notice inviting tender (it was mail motor contract) specifically mentioned that the vehicle should be one not having already run more than one lakh kilometers and crossing the age of five. The admitted position is that the vehicle sought to be placed by the fifth respondent was more than five years old. Though the work order was given, he could not work, since this case was pending. The department continued to get the work done by the erstwhile tenderer.
3. Counsel for the department submits that the word 'and' appearing in fifth line of page one of the tender notice was to be read as 'or'. He says that the word 'and' had come to be inserted because of a printing error. I do not find any merit in this afterthought argument. If there was really a printing error, the department was at liberty to issue appropriate notice correcting it. No such step was taken.
4.It is submitted that subsequently the fifth respondent acquired a new vehicle. That could not have made him
eligible, since at the date he participated, his vehicle sought to be placed, was more than five years old. I
therefore, hold that the fifth respondent was wrongfully selected by the department.
5. For these reasons, I set aside the selection of the fifth respondent and allow the writ petition to this extent. It is made clear that the department will be at liberty to initiate fresh tender process on such terms and conditions as to may deemed fit. If the petitioner and the fifth respondent are eligible to participate, they will be at liberty to do so. There shall be no order for costs in the case.
6. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.
Order accordingly.
