The cancellation of a bid for any reason cannot be questioned unless there is mala fide on the part of the State or its agencies.

JUDGMENT :

Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.

1. The order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 09.09.2021 in WPA No. 13839 of 2021 is impugned in this appeal by the Writ Petitioner as he has suffered dismissal of his Writ Petition.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(i) On 04.06.2021, a notice inviting tender (“NIT” for short) was issued by the Block Development Officer, Burwan, Murshidabad for engagement of Carrying-cum-Storing Agent under Mid-day Meal Scheme (“MDM Scheme” for short) of Burwan Block. In response to the aforesaid NIT 5 (five) persons including the present appellant and present respondent no. 10 filed tender. At 4:30 p.m. on 17.06.2021, the tender box was opened in presence of some bidders including the present appellant and a list was prepared, in which present appellant was shown against serial No. 1 and present Respondent no. 10 was shown against serial No. 2.

(ii) However, the bid pursuant to NIT dated 04.06.2021 was cancelled and second notice inviting tender was published on 11.08.2021 in the daily newspaper “Pratidin” for the aforesaid purpose of engaging Carrying-cum-Storing Agent for Burwan block. In response to the aforesaid second NIT dated 11.08.2021, present Respondent no. 10 and another person submitted bid and the bid was knocked in favour of the present Respondent No. 10.

(iii) The present Appellant came to know about such development on 17.08.2021 and represented before the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on 19.08.2021 and 23.08.2021. Thereafter he filed the Writ Petition, order of which has been impugned in this appeal.

3. From the impugned order it is found that it was asserted by the present appellant before the Writ Court that in fact he was the lowest bidder in the first bid pursuant to NIT dated 04.06.2021 and present Respondent No. 10 had quoted rate of 0.24 paise above 121 km. which had been struck down by pen, subsequently to 0.23 paise. As both the parties were found to have offered the same bid after the striking down of rate as aforesaid was taken into consideration, both may be stated to have quoted similar price in their bid or the Petitioner should have been taken to have offered the lowest bid. The cancellation of the aforesaid bid had been challenged before the Writ Court on the grounds thus:

(i) The reason for cancellation of the first bid was not communicated to the Petitioner-Appellant though he was a successful bidder.

(ii) The Petitioner-Appellant being the successful bidder in the first bid should have been informed personally regarding the second bid.

(iii) The Petitioner-Appellant ought to be given another chance to participate in the tender process.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioner-appellant before the Writ Court was oppugned by the State as well as by the private Respondent on the following grounds:

(i) The Department had the authority to cancel the first bid.

(ii) There was no necessity of intimation to the petitioner regarding the second bid as wide publicity was given to the second bid in the newspaper and notice boards of different offices including the office of the Block Development Officer, Burwan, Murshidabad.

(iii) The cancellation of the first tender process in no way affected any vested right of the Petitioner and such cancellation cannot be termed as unreasonable.

5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by recording the findings thus:

(i) The act of cancellation of the first bid by the Department cannot be termed to be either discriminatory or mala fide or illegal.

(ii) The BDO, Burwan proceeded to publish second notice inviting tender and any person who is and was interested to participate in the tender ought to have been vigilant and should have gone through the details which were made available in public domain and the website of the District Administration.

(iii) The Petitioner having approached the Court after the process of second tender is over, he has no vested right.

6