Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
A-One Enterprise – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. submission of bids and tender process details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. arguments regarding compliance with tender conditions (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. judicial restraint in tender matters (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. rule of law and adherence to tender requirements (Para 39) |
| 5. disposal of writ petition and directions for tender process (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
Preface:
1. The present writ petition has been instituted assailing the propriety and validity of the work order dated 28th May, 2024, issued by the concerned respondent in favour of respondent no. 6, pursuant to an e-tender process for the supply of cooked diets to the indoor patients of ESI Hospital, Manicktala, for a period of two years. The petitioner, in addition to seeking annulment of the said work order, prays for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the concerned respondents to commence a de novo tender process in strict conformity with Clause 39 of the Notice Inviting Tender, the provisions of the WEST BENGAL FINANCIAL RULES , and in d
The court mandated adherence to tender conditions, emphasizing that procedural violations invalidate selections made via non-compliance with established rules.
Judicial review in tender matters requires restraint, emphasizing compliance with the tendering authority’s interpretation unless clear evidence of wrongfulness is established.
Judicial review in tender processes is limited; changes in evaluation methods must ensure fairness and quality, not arbitrary outcomes.
Judicial review in tender processes is limited; courts intervene only in cases of arbitrariness or mala fides, and evaluation methods must ensure quality outcomes.
Judicial review of tender processes is limited to cases of arbitrariness or mala fides; the government has discretion in bid evaluations to ensure quality outcomes.
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited; courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited to cases of clear procedural violations or arbitrariness, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to established norms.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
