JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The matter relates to a tender floated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for supply and delivery of liquid chlorine from proven and reputed manufacturer/or their authorized agent.

2. The eligibility criteria for participation in the tender, inter alia, mentions that the intending tenderers should produce credentials of similar nature of completed work of minimum value of 40% of the estimated amount put to tender during five years prior to the date of issue of the tender notice or the intending tenderers should produce credentials of two similar nature of completed work, each of the minimum value of 30% of the estimated amount put to tender during five years prior to the date of issue of the tender notice.

3. According to the tender document, similar nature of work includes supply of any material.

4. The notice inviting tender mentions that the bidder should have valid explosive license at the time of opening of the bid, L1 bidder should submit the authorization certificate from the manufacturer whose material it is going to supply. If the L1 bidder fails to submit the authorization certificate from the manufacturer within seven days, then the earnest money deposit of L1 bidder will be forfeited and the bidder will be debarred from participating in all future tenders upto three years.

5. The notice inviting tender mentions about a pre bid meeting and all the interested parties could attend the meeting for any query or information.

6. The petitioner no. 1 and the private respondent no. 9 participated in the tender process. Both the tenderers qualified in the technical bid and proceeded to the financial bid stage. The private respondent was found to quote the lowest price and emerged as L1 bidder. However, the work order is yet to be issued.

7. The petitioner submits that the earlier tenders floated for supply of the same chemical clearly mentioned that similar nature of work included ‘supply of any water treatment chemical’. In the notice inviting tender for the present year, the said clause was replaced and ‘supply of any materials’ was included.

8. It has been alleged that the eligibility criteria of the notice inviting tender was tailor-made to suit the private respondent who does not have any experience with regard to supply of liquid chlorine. The private respondent not being experienced enough to participate in the tender process, the Corporation deliberately changed the eligibility criteria in the notice inviting tender.

9. The petitioners stress that the private respondent may have experience in supply of other materials but does not have any experience in supply of liquid chlorine. The petitioner is the best suitable candidate for being selected in the tender process as the petitioner has enough experience in performing similar nature of work viz, supplying liquid chlorine.

10. It has been argued that liquid chlorine is a very important ingredient in the water treatment plant and the Corporation, in the interest of the general public, ought to have restricted the eligibility criteria to participants having wide experience in supplying liquid chlorine and not permit other suppliers to contest the tender process.

11. Even though there was a scope for pre bid meeting to be conducted but the said meeting never took place, and, as such, the petitioners never had the opportunity to raise issue with the eligibility criteria.

12. The petitioners rely upon the following judgments in support of their submission that the act of the Corporation in widening the net to include suppliers of any materials to participate in the instant tender process calls for judicial review and interference by the Court.

(a) Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17.

(b) Chhanda Koley v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 16849.

(c) Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171.

13. Prayer has been made to