Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1335
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
MRT Signals Limited and another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
WPA No. 8752 of 2024
Decided on : 24-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayanta Mitra, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Jishnu Saha, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Rajshree Kajaria, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Ishan Saha
For the Respondent: Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborti, Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Mr. Jaydip Kar, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty, Ms. Sushmita Kumari Singh, Mr. Amit Chowdhury
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that High Courts retain broad writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which cannot be limited by contractual clauses, while also emphasizing strict compliance with tender requirements.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court analyzed the applicability of Amendment No. 5 to the tender process and the technical eligibility of the petitioner, emphasizing the broad powers of High Courts under Article 226, which cannot be ousted by contractual clauses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their tender bid by the respondents, claiming eligibility due to a recent amendment. The respondents contended that the rejection was valid based on non-compliance with tender requirements and jurisdictional issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case as part of the cause of action arose within its territory. However, it ruled that the amendment did not apply to the tender, and the petitioner was ineligible due to non-compliance with submission requirements.
Issues: 1) Whether the court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 2) Whether Amendment No. 5 applies to the petitioners. 3) Whether the non-uploading of Appendix-IB renders the petitioners technically ineligible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while it has jurisdiction under Article 226, the amendment did not apply as it was issued too close to the bid deadline, and the failure to upload Appendix-IB with the technical bid rendered the petitioners ineligible.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The respondent no. 2 (West Central Railways), on August 31, 2023, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for Automatic Block Signalling. The last date of submission of bids was October 16, 2023.
2. By Notification No. 2018/CE-I/CT/36-EPC Contract Policy Pt-I dated October 11, 2023, the Ministry of Railways, Government of India brought Amendment No. 5 to Standard Engineering Procurement Contract Tender Document (EPC) for single stage two packet system, thereby introducing certain amendments to the clauses regarding technical capacity. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 became eligible for participation in the tender only by virtue of such amendment. Accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 uploaded its technical and financial bids on October 15, 2023, one day prior to the closing of the bid submissions.
3. On March 19, 2024, an e-mail was sent to the petitioner no. 1 by respondent no. 3 intimating that the technical bid of the petitioner no. 1 was found technically unsuitable due to the same being non-responsive as Appendix IB was not submitted and the Request For Proposal (RFP) Clause 2.2.2.1(ii) was not satisfied. Challenging the said rejection, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. At the outset, the respondents throw a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to take up the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the added respondent no. 4 cites A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported at (1989) 2 SCC 163, where it was held that if several courts have jurisdiction, the parties can contract to choose to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular court among those. In the present case, the contract clauses specify the courts in Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to have jurisdiction.
5. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 4 also cites Agmatel India Private Limited Vs. Resoursys Telecom and others, reported at (2022) 5 SCC 362 to argue that the technical evaluation or comparison by the court is impermissible and even if the person inviting offers gives an interpretation to the tender document which is not acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while addressing the issue of territorial jurisdiction, cites Ashok Kumar Saboo (HUF) and another Vs. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited and others, reported at (2007) 3 CHN 533, for the proposition that the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be contracted out by selecting one of the two competent forums as there cannot be estoppel against any provision of Constitutional law.
7. Learned senior counsel cites Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India and others, reported at (2020) 13 SCC 285 in support of the proposition that the role of the High Court under the Constitution is crucial to ensuring the rule of law throughout its territorial jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court cannot be completely excluded by a statute. The decision of the High Court to entertain or not entertain a particular action under its writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary and limitations placed on the court’s decision to exercise or refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction are self-imposed.
8. Learned senior counsel next cites a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Sri. Pankaj Panwar Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi and others, reported at AIR 2015 Cal 67, where, after consideration of different judgments, it was held that when the impugned act of the respondents takes effect within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, it may entertain the writ petition notwithstanding that the respondents have their offices or residences outside its territorial jurisdiction. To hold that service of an order or a notice on the addressee would never give rise to a cause of action to move the court within whose territorial limits the order
