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

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prakash Shrivastava, Kesang Doma Bhutia, JJ.
Subhasish Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
MAT No. 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412 of 2021, IA NO: CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Kalayan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Advocate, Kishore Datta, Advocate, Abhishek Halder, Advocate, Deboleena Ghosh, Advocate, Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate, Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate, Anirban Ray, Advocate, Raja Saha, Advocate, Biswabrata Basu Mullick, Advocate

The judgment emphasizes the need for minimal judicial interference in government contracts and tender invitations, and upholds the principle that the government must have freedom of contract in such matters.

Headnote:

Tender Condition - Restrictive Clause - Rule 47, 48, 177 and 184 of the West Bengal Financial Rules - The judgment discusses the imposition of a restrictive condition in a tender invitation for construction work under the Matir Shristi Project. The court considered the arguments of the appellants and the state, and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, stating that the tender condition does not affect any fundamental right and is a reasonable restriction. The court also referred to previous Supreme Court judgments on the interference with government contracts and tender invitations, emphasizing the need for minimal judicial interference in such matters.

Fact of the Case:

The executive engineer issued an invitation of bids for construction work under the Matir Shristi Project, imposing a restrictive condition that a bidder could participate in only one bid. The appellants challenged this condition, arguing that it was arbitrary and against public policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the restrictive condition was imposed to avoid delays in completing the work before the monsoon and was uniformly applied to all bidders. The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, stating that the condition did not affect any fundamental right and was a reasonable restriction.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the restrictive condition imposed in the tender invitation, and whether it was arbitrary or against public policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to restrict bidders to one bid was taken based on the nature, requirement, urgency, and prevailing circumstances, and was uniformly applied to all bidders. The court emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference in government contracts and tender invitations.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court found no error in the decision of the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - This order will govern the disposal of MaT 1409 of 2021, MaT 1410 of 2021, MaT 1411 of 2021 and MaT 1412 of 2021 as it is jointly submitted by the Counsel for the parties that all these appeals are in respect of same issue on identical fact situation.

2. For convenience facts have been taken out from MaT 1410 of 2021 which has been argued as lead appeal in this batch of matters.

3. The executive engineer, DPMU, Bankura had issued invitation of bids (IFB) for construction of Water Detention Structure in district Bankura under Matir Shristi Project. The construction work was detailed in table of IFB. The successful bidder was to complete the work within the specified period. Clause 4.5 (a)(d) of the IFB provides that a bidder could participate in one bid i.e. in any one number of serial of Sl. No. 20 to 61 of bid reference number specified therein. The appellants being aggrieved with this clause restricting the bidder to participate only in one bid had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed by the orders under challenge.

4. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that executive engineer had no power to impose such a restrictive condition in the IFB. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon Rule 47, 48, 177 and 184 of the West Bengal Financial Rules. He has further submitted that public policy is necessary, to have such restriction clause and clause is arbitrary, therefore, it cannot be sustained. He has also submitted that in respect of tender floated in other districts no restrictive clause has been incorporated.

5. Learned Counsel for the State supporting the order of the learned Single Judge and opposing the appeal has submitted that the object of the work is to irrigate barren land and the work is required to be completed before the monsoon, therefore, in order to avoid any delay in completion of work, the condition of one bid per bidder has been imposed and that the focus is on the dried districts where there is urgency, therefore, as per the prevailing circumstances, conditions have been imposed as per requirement in different districts. He has further submitted that the petitioner's first bid has been considered and they have even awarded the contract and the subsequent bids have been treated to be non-responsive and have not been considered. He has also submitted that the criteria has been applied uniformly, therefore, there is no arbitrariness.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the records, we have noticed that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue in detail and has reached to the conclusion that the tender condition under challenge does not affect any basic and fundamental right and is in the nature of reasonable restriction which is an accepted exception to fundamental right. He has duly considered the stand of the State that it wanted to hedge and limit the fall out of failure of one person to fulfill many contracts. He has also considered that the appellants after participating in the tender process cannot turn around and challenge the tender condition. No absence of transparency and unfairness has been found by the learned Single Judge, hence the petition has been dismissed.

7. This Court by the previous order dated 30th of December, 2021 passed in MaT 1410 of 2021, after taking note on rival contention of the Counsel for the parties, had directed the respondents to file the report and justify as to why the embargo was incorporated in district Bankura and not in district Purulia and also to point out if there is any policy decision of the department of the Government in this regard.

8. In pursuance to the said directions, learned Counsel for the State has submitted the report which discloses that similar kind of restriction was imposed in other different divisions/circulars also. It has been disclosed that tender notice of Purba Midnapur DPMU - District Purba Midnapor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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