Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 12762 Of 2002
Decided On : 11/08/2002
TENDER PROCESS - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - EXTENSION OF TIME - PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL REVIEW - LOCUS STANDI 1. A person having minimum three years experience in management of a ferry service as per conditions imposed by the Corporation is entitled to bid. 2. Extension of time to deposit the tendered amount resulting in vitiation of the process of tender is an abuse of power. 3. In furtherance of public interest, the selection of a person having no requisite qualification should be quashed. 4. A person whose tender has been rejected may very well complain that the tender of one else has been wrongly accepted. 5. A person who has not participated in the process of tender can also impugn the selection on the ground that if it were known that non-fulfilment of condition of eligibility would be no bar to consideration of a tender, he would also have submitted a tender and competed for obtaining a contract.
Fact of the Case:
The Chandannagore Municipal Corporation invited tenders for the lease of Ranighat-Jagatdal Motor Launch Ferry Service. Two writ petitions were filed challenging the process of tender and the selection of Dipak Mukherjee, the private respondent, on the grounds that he had no requisite qualification and that he was given extension of time to deposit the tendered amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Dipak Mukherjee did not have the requisite qualification to bid as he was not a person having minimum three years experience in management of a ferry service. The court also held that the Corporation abused its power by giving extension of time to Dipak Mukherjee to deposit the tendered amount.
Issues: 1. Whether Dipak Mukherjee had the necessary competency of management of a ferry service as per conditions imposed by the Corporation? 2. Even if Dipak Mukherjee had such qualification, whether the Corporation abused its power in giving extension of time to such respondent for deposit of the tendered amount resulting in vitiation of the process of tender?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "management of a ferry service" to mean the experience of the person actually invested with such responsibility, and not that of an employee of a person entrusted with management. 2. The court held that the Corporation was not justified in giving extension of time to Dipak Mukherjee to deposit the tendered amount, as the terms of the tender did not permit any relaxation of the conditions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the decision of the Corporation accepting the bid of Dipak Mukherjee and directed the Corporation to take back the management of the ferry service from him. The Corporation was also directed to refund the balance amount from the sum deposited by Dipak Mukherjee after adjusting the proportionate less from September 1, 2002 till the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) BY filing these two separate writ applications, two of the participators have challenged the process of tender and the ultimate selection of one Dipak mukherjee, the private respondent, upon whom the Chandannagore Municipal Corporation ("corporation") has entrusted the responsibility of running the Ranighat-Jagatdal Motor launch Ferry Service for the next three years on the basis of yearly payment of Rs. 13,20,000/ -.
( 2 ) THE Corporation on August 14, 2002 gave a public notice inviting tender in sealed envelope from the persons having at least three years experience of management of ferry ghat service after revoking an earlier notice dated August 13, 2002. One of the present writ petitioners viz. , Swapan Kumar bose, in the past, challenged the notice dated August 14, 2002 by filing a writ application on the allegation that by replacing the phrase "lanuch Ghat Service" appearing in the notice dated August 13, 2002 with the one "ferry Ghat Service" appearing in the latter one, the Corporation intended to entertain tenders from the persons having no experience in "launch Ghat Service".
( 3 ) MR. Sirkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation having conceded before this Court that by virtue of such notice a person having no experience in management of launch service for three years would not be eligible to participate, the said writ application was disposed of with the observation that nobody without having experience of running launch service for three years would be entitled to take part in the process of tender.
( 4 ) IT was further stipulated in the said notice that the highest bidder was required to pay in cash the offered amount for the first year immediately after the acceptance of his bid, otherwise, his right to get the lease would stand cancelled and the security deposit would be forfeited.
( 5 ) IN both the writ applications, the selection of Dipak Mukherje, the private respondent has been impugned principally on twofold grounds; first, he had no requisite qualification of running launch ferry service for three years and secondly, on August 29, 2002, the date of opening of the tender, he could not deposit his offered amount as per condition but in spite of such default, corporation permitted him to deposit the same on August 31, 2002, although for the similar reason, the bid of the highest bidder viz. One Hemanta Kumar Pathak was cancelled on August 29, 2002. Dipak mukherjee, there is no dispute, was the second highest bidder.
( 6 ) THE aforesaid allegations of the petitioners have been seriously disputed by the corporation and the private respondent by filing separate affidavits-in-opposition.
( 7 ) AS regards the allegation of lack of prescribed eligibility, both the Corporation and the private respondent in one voice have asserted that the private respondent worked as an Assistant Manager of Hooghly Nadi jalapath Paribahan Samabay Samiti Ltd. a co-operative Society for more than nineteen years and while working in such capacity he acquired experience of supervision and running launch service of the said co-operative society. A certificate dated May 16, 2002 issued by the Chairman of the said co-operative Society declares that the private respondent worked in the society from october 14, 1980 to November 30, 1999 as assistant manager in Supervision and running launch service of that Society and that he is a competent person in running launch service.
( 8 ) THE writ petitioners on the other hand contend that three years experience in management of a ferry service necessarily includes operation, maintenance, management and all other fields including safety as well as public relation required to be maintained. An employee of a Co-operative Society, they maintain, cannot claim such experience simply because he acted as an Assistant manager of a Society when such Society was in management of a ferry service. In such a situation, they allege that the Cooperative s
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
