A dispute regarding insertion of a word in a document is a pure question of fact which cannot be decided without evidence and as such no remedy is available in this Writ Court.

Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.:

1. In the present writ petition the sole proprietor, the petitioner no. 2 Mr. Amal Dey of M/s. Dey Enterprise has claimed that on 08.04.2008 two tenders being nos. TI/CTD/OPC-Laying/2007-08/1 and TI/CTD/OPCLaying/ 2007-08/2 were floated by the respondents for Optical Fiber cable laying work but there was no scope for unempanelled contractors to participate to bid the tender which was earlier entertained by them. So he made a representation on 23.04.2008 before the respondent no. 4 praying for issue of necessary corrigendum in their rules for enlistment of contractors for cable construction works which was effected in 2004. The last date of submission of such bid tender was 06.05.2008 up to 13 Hrs. and the date of opening of such bid was fixed on 06.05.2008 at 14 Hrs. Since he received no reply he filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 8379(W) of 2008 which was moved on 09.05.2008. The Hon’ble Court allowed him to participate in such tender process and so he did not proceed with the said writ petition which was dismissed as not pressed. He has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as mentioned in his tender papers but the result of his application was not intimated to him for more than 4 ½ months though the respondent authorities scrutinized all tender applications through technical tender bid on 28.05.2008. On 16.10.2008 he went to the office of the respondents and came to know that financial tender bid in respect of the said assignment was going to be held on 24.10.2008 for which some of the participants were duly intimated. So he sent a representation to the respondents on 17.10.2008 praying for allowing him to participate in the financial bid, but to no effect. Therefore, he has filed the instant writ petition praying for allowing him to participate in the financial tender bid held on 24.10.2008 after publishing the result of the technical bid held on 28.05.2008.

2. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 have opposed the move in their affidavit-in-opposition and denied the allegation. They have claimed that the result of technical bid in the instant case was duly communicated to all concerned on 28.05.2008 which will be evident from the recorded statement as at Annexure R-1. It is further contended that the petitioner no. 2 was personally present on the date of opening of the tenders on 28.05.2008 and signed himself as a representative of petitioner no. 1 along with all other participants. As per tender notice the participants were required to submit documents to prove his eligibility class but he has not submitted any such certificates in support of his claim and as a consequence he was declared unsuccessful in the technical bid and in the relevant remarks column it has been specifically mentioned as “not submitted”. As he was unsuccessful in the technical bid he was not invited to participate in the financial bid at a later stage. In fact there was no unfairness or biasness on the part of the respondent against the petitioner no. 1.

3. In his affidavit-in-reply the writ petitioner no. 2 in paragraph no. 4(d) has claimed that in order to deprive the writ petitioner the respondent had inserted one word “not” before the word “submitted” in the relevant column for producing document to prove “eligibility class of contractor” even though he submitted such documents at the time of filing his application. He has further claimed that the purpose of such heinous act of inserting the word “not” had virtually taken off the eligibility criteria of the petitioner even though at the time of opening of the said tender in the said column it was written as “submitted” in the relevant other column. In fact along with his tender paper he annexed relevant certificate issued by the respondent authorities during the year 2005-06 showing the amount received by him for Optical Fiber cable laying work amounting to Rs. 24,00,090/- as per certificate issued by Chief Accounts Officer (SBP), Calcutta Telephones dated 13.