Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S. Talapatra, JJ.
Renu Lal Roy and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Tripura and Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014
Decided On : 08-09-2014
For the Appellant :S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, P. Gautam and D. Das, Advocates For the Respondent:T. Datta Majumder, G.A, Advocates
The authority cannot ask for experience at the time of sale and purchase of tender documents; evaluation of tenders should be done after tenders are opened.
Headnote:
Tender Form - Refusal to Supply - N/A - The court discussed the conditions for sale of tender documents and held that the authority has no business of asking for experience at the time of sale and purchase of tender documents. The court clarified that the evaluation of tenders should be done after tenders are opened and cannot be done at the time of sale and purchase of tender documents. The judgment emphasized that the sale of a tender document does not give rise to a presumption that the party satisfies all the conditions of the tender.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought tender forms for a construction project but were refused by the respondents based on their alleged lack of requisite experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the refusal to supply the tender form to be illegal and set it aside. However, as the tender had already been awarded and the work was almost complete, no further relief was granted to the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could refuse to supply the tender form to the petitioners based on their alleged lack of requisite experience.
Ratio Decidendi: The authority has no business of asking for experience at the time of sale and purchase of tender documents. The evaluation of tenders should be done after tenders are opened and cannot be done at the time of sale and purchase of tender documents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to ensure that the judgment is followed in future.
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The short issue involved in this petition is whether the respondents could refuse to supply the tender form to the petitioners or not. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, DWS Division, Kalyanpur, PWD, Khowai, Tripura issued a Notice Inviting Tender for various works. The condition relating to sale of tender documents reads as follows:-
"Tender documents shall be issued on Payment of Rs. 500.00 (Rupees five hundred) only in cash (Non-refundable) on any working days as specified above on production of documentary proof of PAN Card, valid PTCC/STCC (wherever applicable), enlistment certificate and licence regarding engagement of workers in the contract work from labour Department, Govt. of Tripura and registration of firm in case of firm and companies along with an application."
2. The case of the petitioners is that they complied with all the conditions contained in the above quoted clause of the Notice Inviting Tenders, but tender was not sold to them by the respondent-Executive Engineer.
3. On notice being issued counter affidavit has been filed on the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura and the relevant portion of the reply reads as follows:-
"(6) Sans unnecessary details the case of the respondents, in brief, was that tender forms were not sold to the petitioners simply because of the fact that they do not have required experience certificate of doing similar nature of work for which tender was invited. It is crystal clear from the NIT that the Respondent No. 3 invited tender from bona fide contractors having experience in similar nature of work in pipeline with good credential in PWD Form No. 7. Since the work in question is construction of Pump House and installation of submersible Pump Motor of DTW scheme laying GI/PVC pipeline and other allied works under DWS Sub-Division, Mungiakami, the petitioners ought to have experience in laying of GI pipe line apart from other which is the major work. Since the petitioner could not show any paper of their having experience in laying of GI pipe line, they were not issued tender form. Apart from this there is no other ground to reject their claim.
Presently work order has been issued to one Bishu Charan Biswas vide Work Order No. 01/WO/EE/KLNP/PWD/DWS/2014-15 dated 31.5.14, a copy of which is enclosed herewith and is marked as Annexure - R/1 of this affidavit.
On 27.05.2014 tender was opened and the same was finalized on 30.05.2014. The works are in progress. As per record 200 mt. laying of GI Pipe has been completed."
4. Therefore, the case of the respondents is that according to them, the petitioners did not have requisite experience of doing the work as required under the tender document and therefore, the tender document was not sold. It has also been urged by the respondents in Para 8 of the reply that-
"(8) In this respect, it is to mention here that the tender was invited from the experience contractors in similar nature of works for execution of work in a time bound manner but not at the cost of quality of work as laid down in the specification of the aforesaid DNIT. Such commitment of maintaining quantity and quality of the work can be fulfilled only by engaging experience contractor in similar nature of work, not the inexperience contractor. Consideration of the prayer of your clients will be against the provision of the aforesaid Press NIT, which is not at all permissible. So your client may be requested to withdraw such type of undue claim for issuing them tender form so that the tender may be opened and finalized in due course for extending benefit to the tribal people of the hilly areas as well as the State of Tripura."
5. In Para 25 of the reply as follows:-
"(25) That in reply to the contention made in Para - 22 of the petition I submit that selling of tender form to the petitioners would mean that they are eligible tenderers having experience in similar nature of work. By selling those tender
