IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J., HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
The State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Rahul Ghosh and Others – Respondents
MAT Nos. 2368, 2417 of 2023, IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2024
(A) E-tender process - Rejection of technical bid - The rejection was based on the incorrect addressing of the bid to the Superintendent instead of MPO cum Superintendent - The court found the rejection arbitrary and unreasonable, as the tender documents had not been amended to reflect this change - The learned Single Bench's decision to allow the writ petition was upheld. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
(B) Pre bid meeting - The scope of a pre bid meeting does not allow for alterations to the tender conditions as published - The court emphasized that the terms of the tender must remain consistent with the original invitation. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners challenged the rejection of their technical bid in an auction conducted by the Government of West Bengal, which was rejected on the grounds of incorrect addressing. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition, leading to the appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the technical bid to be arbitrary and unreasonable, affirming the Single Bench's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the technical bid based on addressing was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection was unjustified as the tender documents had not been amended, and the pre bid meeting could not alter the original terms.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.
1. Both the appeals were heard analogously as the challenge in the both the appeals is to the same order passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA No. 26204 of 2023. The writ petition was filed by the respondent 1 to 4 herein who are the partners of the M/s. Ghosh and Roy Company challenging the rejection of their technical bid in an auction conducted by the Government of West Bengal, Office of the Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala, Kolkata-700054.
2. The technical bid was rejected for the reason “MPO cum Superintendent is not mentioned as per pre bid minutes as memo no. EH/MN/2373 clause no. 8 in Annexure B.” The learned Single Bench had allowed the writ petition set aside the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioners and including the issuance of the work order in favour of the appellant in MAT No. 2417 of 2023. Taking into consideration that the contract is for providing food items to the patients in the hospital, the learned writ court provided for an adhoc arrangement, permitted the appellant in MAT No. 2417 of 2023 to continue with the supplies till the tender process is finalised in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench. The private respondent in the writ petition as well as the State of West Bengal are aggrieved by the said order.
3. We have heard Mr. Suman Sengupta learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Basu Mallick and Mr. Sanatan Panja learned advocates appearing for the appellant in Mat No. 2368 of 2023, Mr. L.K. Gupta learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee and Mr. Joyjeev Medhi learned advocates appearing for the appellant in Mat No. 2414 of 2023 and Mr. Jaidip Kar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh and Mr. Arabinda Pathak, learned advocates appearing for the writ petitioner.
4. The facts which are relevant are that totally there were 23 bidders who had responded to the tender invited by the authorities concerned. Out of the 23 bidders, the bids of the 9 have been technically rejected for the self same reason on which the technical bid of the writ petitioner was rejected. To be noted that the tender was invited by the Government of West Bengal, Office of Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala, Kolkata-700024, Memo dated 11.05.2023. The said invitation of E-tender was signed by MPO Cum Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala. The period of submissions of E-tender was up to 05.06.2023 up to 4:00 PM.
5. The pre bid meeting was fixed on 16.05.2023. In the said meeting, there appears to have been some discussion and the minutes were recorded in the writing by Memo dated 18.05.2023. Serial No. 8 of the minutes is relevant for the case which states “In invitation of E-tender always apply to MPO Superintendent, in place of Superintendent.” The writ petitioner in response to the E-tender has applied to the Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala. This according to the tender inviting authority is technically incorrect and therefore the bid was rejected.
6. At the outset, we need to point out that the decision taken by the authority to reject the technical bid of the writ petitioner and others on this ground was highly arbitrary and unreasonable and not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the E-tender.
7. As pointed out earlier, the tender was invited by Memo dated 11.05.2023 by the Government of West Bengal, Office of Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala, Kolkata. In the tender document, in Clause 43 it has been stated that any decision taken in the pre bid meeting will be valid during the tender process. In Clause 44, it is stated that the applicant should fill up Annexure A and B. Annexure B deals with the Tender Participation Application. Annexure B is addressed to the Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala, Bagbari Road, Kolkata-700054. This annexure which forms part of the invitation for E-tender has not been amended and the writ petitione
The rejection of a technical bid based on incorrect addressing was deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, as the tender documents had not been amended to reflect such a requirement.
The court affirmed that tender documents must be signed as per mandatory requirements, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', thus validating the rejection of non-compliant bids.
The court upheld the rejection of the technical bid based on the assessment of the bidder's capability to execute the work as per the tender document.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited; courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
Failure to submit mandatory documents leads to rejection of technical bids as non-responsive, with no grounds for procedural violation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.