SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Cal) 85

High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY
GOURANGA LAL CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P.  2266  Of  2001
Decided On : 02/12/2002

Advocates Appeared:
ABHIJIT CHATTERJI, Anath Bandhu Dutta, BIKASH RANJAN BHATTACHARJI, Samaraditya Pal, SAMIR CHAKRABORTY, Satya Brata Chakroborty

The purpose of the Bank guarantee is to ensure that the bidder will not withdraw its bid during the period of Bid validity and that it will execute the contract if it is awarded the contract.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - BELGHORIA EXPRESS WAY - BID SECURITY - BANK GUARANTEE - EXTENSION OF VALIDITY - REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSE - FAIRNESS - ARTICLE 14.

Fact of the Case:

A pre-qualification notice was sent to the petitioners inviting proposals from them for short listing of bidders to work under package Nos. 2 and 3 of the Belghoria Express way. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted a Pre-qualification application and, thereafter, the petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 4 that the petitioners have qualified for Package No. 2 and they may apply for the purchase of bid documents. After purchasing the said bid documents, the petitioners submitted its tender on 14th September 2000. Along with the said bid, the petitioners also submitted all the required documents.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the State respondents have followed 'relevant, rational and non-discriminatory standards' and that is all what is required of them, as succinctly put by Justice Bhagwati in Ramana, AIR 1979 SC 1628 in the concluding portion of paragraph 12, after noticing the observation of Justice Frankfurter in Vitraelli v. Seaton, (1959 (359) us 535) in Paragraph 10.

Issues: Whether the extension of the validity period of the Bank Guarantee is permissible under the terms of ITB.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The clauses in a contract cannot be read as one reads the statutory provision. They must be read keeping in mind the intentions of the parties. 2. The purpose of the Bank guarantee is to ensure that the bidder will not withdraw its bid during the period of Bid validity and that it will execute the contract if it is awarded the contract. 3. Clause 16. 3 of ITB must be read with Clause 23. 4 (ii) and Clause 26. 1. Clause 23. 4 (ii) provides that after receipt of confirmation of the bid security, the bidder will be asked to clarify or modify his technical bid, if necessary, with respect to any rectifiable defects. Clause 26. 1 provides that during the detailed evaluation of the "technical Bids", the Employer will determine whether each Bid (a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in Clause 3 and 4; (b) has been properly signed; (c) is accompanied by the required securities and; (d) is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding documents. 4. Therefore, the recommendation of the Tender Evaluation Committee for accepting the bid of the private respondent does not call for any interference by this Court. This Court finds that Award Criteria in clause 31 of ITB has been followed in the said recommendation.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated.

A. K. GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the tender evaluation Committee recommending the acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 (hereinafter (REFERRED TO as the private respondents) in reaped of Construction of Belghoria Express Way, Package II, The challenge is mainly on the ground that the tender submitted by the private respondents does not conform to the requirements stipulated in theinstruction to the Bidders (hereinafter to as the said ITB ). It was submitted by the petitioner that the tender of the private respondents should have been rejected as non responsive by the State if the conditions of itb were adhered to.

( 2 ) ). The material facts of the case are as follows : both the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are class I Contractors and empanelled with the public Works Department and other organizations.

( 3 ) ). A pre-qualification notice was sent to the petitioners inviting proposals from them for short listing of bidders to work under package Nos. 2 and 3 of the Belghoria Express way. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted a Pre-qualification application and, thereafter, the petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 4 that the petitioners have qualified for Package No. 2 and they may apply for the purchase of bid documents. After purchasing the said bid documents, the petitioners submitted its tender on 14th September 2000. Along with the said bid, the petitioners also submitted all the required documents. The case of the petitioners is that its tender satisfies all the requirements of the technical bid and the petitioners were intimated of the same and they were further informed that the date of opening of the financial bid was fixed on 5th october 2001.

( 4 ) ). By forming a joint venture, the private respondents also submitted a pre-qualification application to the respondent No. 4 and the private respondents were also informed by the respondent No. 4 that they are qualified and may apply for purchase of the bidding documents and pursuant thereto, the private respondents submitted their bids. The technical bid of the private respondents was allegedly found to be in order (this is disputed by the petitioners ). The financial bid was opened thereafter and it was found that the bid of the private respondents was for a sum of Rupees 25,20,45,581/- whereas the bid of the petitioners was for a sum of Rs. 25,64,44,310/ -. As the bid of the private respondents was found to be the lowest, the same was recommended for acceptance by the respondents. This decision, as noted above, has been challenged on several grounds.

( 5 ) ). Now coming to the detailed facts of the case, it is clear that in so far as the bid of the petitioner is concerned, the same is proper and valid in terms of ITB. In the instant case. Bank Guarantees are to be submitted by all the intending bidders. In so far as the petitioners are concerned the Bank guarantees furnished by them were in terms of the ITB. But of the two Bank Guarantees submitted by the private respondents, one was for Rs. 30,37,500/- of the Global Trust bank and the same was valid up to 31st march 2002. This other Bank Guarantee submitted by the private respondents was for Rs. 10,12,500/- of the United Commercial bank and the same was valid upto 24th february 2002. The second Bank Guarantee is dated 13th September 2001. It has been specifically made clear that the said bank Guarantee shall be valid only up to 24th February 2002. Admittedly, the validity of the said Bank Guarantee is less than the required period mentioned in the ITB.

( 6 ) ). In this connection, the relevant conditions in ITB may be noticed. Clause 12. 1 of ITB makes it clear that the bid to be submitted shall be in two parts. The first part would be called the technical bid and the second part the financial bid.

( 7 ) ). Part I of the technical bid comprises various components and of them bid security is important. That is wh




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top