The court ruled that ambiguities in tender clauses do not warrant cancellation if reasonable interpretations exist.

1. At the juncture when the petitioner moves the matter, Mr. Jaydip Kar, senior advocate, submits that he has instruction to intervene on behalf of Sri Shibnath Ghosh, since the said Shibnath Ghosh was one of the participants in the impugned tender, which has already reached the stage of finalization.

2. In view of there being substance in the contention of Mr. Kar, that his client is directly interested in the outcome of the matter, this Court permits Mr. Kar to submit on behalf of said Shibnath Ghosh as an intervenor, despite the latter not being impleaded in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, points out that similar tenders in respect of other hospitals were set aside by this Court by various orders. However, since the present tender was floated retaining the same discrepancies in spirit, it ought to be set aside.

4. In this regard, learned counsel points out to an order of this Court passed in W. P No. 20698(W) of 2019 (Rajib Roy Versus The State of West Bengal and others) dated November 25, 2019, which is annexed as Annexure - P / 9 at page - 177 of the instant writ petition, from which it is evident that at least some of the points taken herein were also canvassed in the said matter by the present petitioner.

5. Ultimately, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - authorities having submitted, on the basis of verbal instruction, that the respondent - authorities admitted that there were irregularities in the tender impugned in that writ petition, they wanted to re - issue the said tender. The writ petition was dismissed on such submission being made on behalf of the respondent - authorities.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next points out another order of this Court dated December 6, 2019 passed in W. P. No. 21689(W) of 2019 (Rajib Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.), which is annexed as Annexure - P / 10 at page - 182 of the instant writ petition, wherein a similar tender was sought to be implemented in respect of a different hospital, which writ petition was allowed, thereby setting aside the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), in view of consent given by the respondent - authorities as to certain admitted discrepancies in the said NIT in the previous writ petition, that is, W. P. No. 20698(W) of 2019, on which basis the order dated November 25, 2019 was passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on a judgment of a co - ordinate Bench dated December 19, 2019 passed in W. P. No. 22979(W) of 2019 (Dulal Chandra Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) wherein, on the basis of an observation that a similar notice was set aside in respect of another hospital, followed by setting aside a further notice in respect of another hospital on the strength of the earlier order, the learned single Judge found that the challenge to that notice rode on those two orders.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State in that matter, had submitted that setting aside of the other two memos had been accepted by the State. Accordingly, the said writ petitions were disposed of by setting aside the memos impugned therein.
As such, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the present NIT ought also to be set aside on similar grounds.

9. Pointing out specifically to the discrepancies, which, according to the petitioner, has crept in Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 (at page - 64), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said clauses contemplate that the bidder shall quote an administrative charge for providing goods and / or services, as applicable