Back
High Court Of Calcutta
B. C. Ray
BARUN K.SINHA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MURSHIDABAD - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 08/31/1981
TENDER - Acceptance of tender - Arbitrary and discriminatory - Violation of principles of natural justice - Tender notice inviting tenders from bona fide contractors for supply of dietary articles in the hospitals of the Murshidabad District - Tender submitted by the petitioner at the lowest rates - Acceptance of the tender submitted by respondent No. 6 at a higher rate - Held, the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 6 without at all considering the lowest rate submitted by the petitioner in his tender is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and bad.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor supplying dietary articles in the State-owned hospitals in Murshidabad since 1974, submitted a tender in pursuance of tender notice issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Murshidabad, for the year 1981-82 inviting tenders from bona fide contractors for supply of dietary articles. The tender notice stated that the intending tenderers shall quote overall percentage of rate for each category of contract in each zone falling in Part-I either 'above' or 'at par' or 'below' the schedule of rates prepared for the purpose. It was further stated that in respect of the State-owned hospitals and health centres falling under zone in Part-II the intending tenderers may quote overall percentage of one rate for three categories of contracts either 'above' or 'below' the schedule of rates as one contract for each zone or three categories as shown in Part-II. The petitioner submitted the tender at the lowest rates for all three categories of articles, which were much lower than the rates submitted by respondent No. 6. On April 30, 1981, at 3 p.m., all the tenders were opened in the office of the respondent No. 2. On May 9, 1981, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 6 was selected for supply of dietary articles for the year 1981-82 in the hospitals within the district of Murshidabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 6 without at all considering the lowest rate submitted by the petitioner in his tender is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and bad. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.
Issues: Whether the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 6 without at all considering the lowest rate submitted by the petitioner in his tender is arbitrary, unwarranted and bad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 6 without at all considering the lowest rate submitted by the petitioner in his tender is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and bad. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the order dated 30-4-1981 accepting the tender of respondent No. 6 for supply of items in category nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the hospitals and health centres within the district of Murshidabad. It also issued a writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30-4-1981 passed by the District Diet Committee or for that the Chairman of the said Committee appointing the respondent No. 6 as contractor for supply of the said dietary articles.
( 1 ) THE subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the acceptance of the tender submitted by respondent No. 6. Narayan Roy for supply of dietary articles in the hospitals of the Murshidabad District arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts of this case as well as the case of Tapan Kumar Ghosh are almost identical and as such the statement of the facts of Barun Kumar Sinha's case will suffice for the purpose of decisions of these two rules.
( 2 ) THE petitioner Barun Kumar Sinha who has been supplying dietary articles in the State-owned hospitals in Murshidabad since 1974 submitted a tender in pursuance of tender notice issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Murshidabad, respondent No. 2, for the year 1981-82 inviting tenders from bona fide contractors for supply of dietary articles. It has been stated in the said notice that the intending tenderers shall quote overall percentage of rate for each category of contract in each zone falling in Fart-I either 'above' or 'at par' or 'below' the schedule of rates prepared for the purpose. It has been further stated in the said notice that in respect of the State-owned hospitals and health centres falling under zone in Part-II the intending tenderers may quote overall percentage of one rate for three categories of contracts either 'above' or 'below' the schedule of rates as one contract for each zone lor three categories as shown in Part-II. A copy of the schedule of rates and the tender form, it has been stated in the tender notice, is obtainable from the office of the respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 5/- in Treasury Challan to be deposited on week days and the last date for submission of tenders was fixed on 30-4-1981 up to 12 noon. It is also stated therein that the tenders would be opened on 30-4-1981 at 3 p. m. The selection of tenders and acceptance of rates would be communicated to the parties concerned by the respondent No. 2 for and on behalf of the Government of West Bengal. It has also been provided in the tender notice that the Governor of West Bengal reserves the right to reject any tender without assigning any reason thereof and acceptance of lowest rates will not be obligatory to the contracting officer. This tender notice has been annexed as annexure 'b' to the petition. A schedule of rates of dietary articles for the year 1981-82 categorywise has been annexed as annexure 'a' to the petition. The tender submitted by the petitioner has been annexed as annexure 'c' to the petition and the rates quoted therein for all three categories of articles are much lower than the rates submitted by the respondent No. 6 and the rates offered by the petitioner are the lowest rates. On Apr. 30, 1981. at 3 p. m. all the tenders were opened in the office of the respondent No. 2. On 9th of May, 1981. the petitioner came to know from the office of the respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 6 was selected for supply of dietary articles for the year 1981-82 in the hospitals within the district of Murshidabad. It has been stated that the respondent No. 6 was not a bona fide contractor as he has no experience as a diet contractor and the respondent No. 6 is a close associate of the respondent No. 2. the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Murshidabad and as such this unusual award of contract in favour of respondent No. 6 has been made. It has also been submitted that no reason has been assigned in not accepting the fender wherein the lowest rate was quoted for supply of these dietary articles bv the petitioner, nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before rejecting his tender. It has been submitted that the order of appointment made by the Dietary Committee consisting of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 is arbitrary and discriminatory and no reasons have been assigned for appointing respondent No. 6 as successful contractor. It has also been submitted that this appointment is in contravention of the fundamenta
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
