Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY
GOLAM MOHAMMAD - Appellant
Versus
SUPDT.N.R.S.MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL - Respondent
W. P. 1875 Of 2000
Decided On : 08/31/2000
TENDER PROCESS - UNJUST EXCLUSION OF TENDERS - ARTICLE 14 - PUBLIC INTEREST - DISCRIMINATION - FAIRNESS - REASONABLENESS - PRAGMATISM - STATE'S OBLIGATION - NON-ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS - TENDER NOTICE - DISCLOSURE OF CONDITIONS - RE-TENDERING.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Din Mohammad and Golam Mohammad, submitted tenders for the supply of dietary articles to a hospital. However, their tenders were not considered due to a resolution passed by the respondent on 23-6-2000, which stated that tenders below 10% or above 10% of the scheduled rates would not be considered. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decision to exclude the petitioners' tenders was arbitrary and discriminatory. It violated the principles of fairness and reasonableness, as well as the obligation of the State to act in a manner consistent with the concept of a welfare State governed by the Rule of Law. The court further held that the condition of eligibility evolved by the resolution dated 23-6-2000 was a vital condition and resulted in the total exclusion of the petitioners' tenders from consideration. This could not be justified on the basis of any known criteria, and in fact, tenders below 10% of the scheduled rates had been accepted in respect of other hospitals.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision to exclude the petitioners' tenders was arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. Whether the condition of eligibility evolved by the resolution dated 23-6-2000 was a vital condition and resulted in the total exclusion of the petitioners' tenders from consideration. 3. Whether the State's obligation to act in a manner consistent with the concept of a welfare State governed by the Rule of Law was violated.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles laid down in the cases of Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, Harmindar Singh v. Union of India, and Dutt Associates Private Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Private Ltd. to hold that the decision to exclude the petitioners' tenders was arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The court held that the condition of eligibility evolved by the resolution dated 23-6-2000 was a vital condition and resulted in the total exclusion of the petitioners' tenders from consideration. This could not be justified on the basis of any known criteria, and in fact, tenders below 10% of the scheduled rates had been accepted in respect of other hospitals. 3. The court held that the State's obligation to act in a manner consistent with the concept of a welfare State governed by the Rule of Law was violated. The court stated that the requirement of a State to act fairly and reasonably in view of the Constitutional compulsion is paramount and will outweigh all other requirements of acting with pragmatism.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned decision dated 23-6-2000 and directed that there should be re-tendering by the respondents in accordance with law. The court also dismissed the writ petition filed by Debasis Ghosh, who had not submitted any tender and therefore had no locus standi to challenge the tendering process.
( 1 ) ALL these three writ petitions were heard together. The first two writ petitions are concerned with identical issues and insofar as the third writ petition is concerned the questions raised are a little different. Since in the first two writ petitions same questions are involved, they are taken up first.
( 2 ) IN Re : Din Mohammad - The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to a tender notice dated 9-6-2000 the petitioner submitted a tender for supply of dietary articles for the Indoor patients of the Hospital with 1890 beds for the period from 1st July, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 or any further period extended by the appropriate authority. Along with the said tender a schedule of rates for different articles have also been appended.
( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the schedule it will appear that the tender is invited in respect of various food items. The writ petitioner also asserts that he is an existing supplier. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that even though the petitioner has submitted his tender complying with all the formalities under the tender notice but his tender has not been considered in view of a resolution which was taken by the respondent No. 1 on or about 23-6-2000 to the effect that tender filed below 10% of the scheduled rates will not be considered. Similarly, it was decided that tenders filed above 10% of the scheduled rates will not be considered.
( 4 ) IT is further asserted by the petitioner that the said decision was taken secretly in the office of the respondent No. 1 and without any notice to the petitioner.
( 5 ) IT is submitted that the said condition for non-consideration of the tender was not indicated in the tender notice. It is also submitted that the said decision was taken by the authorities before even considering the tender of the petitioner.
( 6 ) IN Re : Golam Mohammad - The same grievances have been raised in the writ petition filed by Golam Mohammad.
( 7 ) THE complaint to the above fact has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition filed by Golam Mohammad. The said paragraph 6 is set out hereinbelow:-"that in between 2. 00 p. m. to 3. 00 p. m. after closing of the submission of the tender at 2. 00 p. m. the respondent No. 1 with the other authorities of Nil Ratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital took a resolution that the tenders filed up to below 10% of the scheduled rate will be considered. "
( 8 ) THE grievance is that as a result of passing of the said resolution the petitioner's tender has not been at all considered on merit.
( 9 ) LEARNED counsel in both the writ petitions urged the following grounds: (I) The petitioners are entitled to have their tender considered in accordance with the conditions of eligibility mentioned in the tender notice. (II) The petitioners filed their tenders after complying with the conditions in the tender notice, so non-consideration of their tenders amount to discrimination. (III) The impugned condition of eligibility for non-consideration of tenders has been evolved by the respondents in secrecy of their office and without any notice to the petitioners so the same is arbitrary. (IV) In the above premises, the petitioners contend that the total exclusion of their tenders from consideration amounts to a hostile discrimination which is prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution. Such manner of non-consideration of the petitioners tender is inherently unjust and unfair. It is true that there is a degree of overlapping before those points. But those are broadly the points urged by the petitioners.
( 10 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further pointed out that the respondents do not factually dispute that after the tenders were submitted and the time for such submission was over, the respondent evolved the aforesaid conditionsof eligibility. In fact, in this case the respondents have not filed any affidavit and have not disputed any factual assertion made by the petitioners.
(
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
