IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WPA 18675 of 2019 With CAN 1/2020 & CAN 2/2025 United Order and Supply Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Versus The State of West Bengal and Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy, Adv.

For the Respondent No. 17 : Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Suparna Paul, Adv.

Mr. Arabinda Pathak, Adv.

Ms. Shilpi Ghosh, Adv.

For the State Respondents : Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Adv.

Ms. Amrita Panja Mallick, Adv.

Heard on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 27.08.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The writ petitioner approached this Court praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to admit the technical bid of the Petitioner and to reject the technical bids of respondent nos. 15 to 17 in connection with the tender process initiated in NIT No. 3542 dated 27.05.2019 for supply of cooked diet for indoor patients at Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital, Bankura along with other consequential reliefs.

2. The sum and substance of this case is that the petitioner is a society duly registered under the Co- operative Societies Act, 1983 and engaged, inter alia, in the business of supplying cooked diet to various Government Hospitals across different districts of the State of West Bengal.

3. Pursuant to NIT No. 3542 dated 27.05.2019, issued by respondent no. 7 invited E-Tender for supply of cooked diet to the indoor patients of Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital. The petitioner participated in the said tender process by submitting all requisite documents.

4. The technical bid of the petitioner was opened and duly admitted on 19.06.2019. A comparative statement of technical bid was uploaded on the tender web portal bearing the signatures of concerned respondents, wherein it was reflected that all the documents has been submitted by the petitioner, was “Not Approved By The Swasthya Bhavan” without any reason being assigned.

5. According to the petitioner, upon scrutiny of the documents furnished by the other participants/bidders, it transpired that several deficiencies were present in their bids. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities, in an arbitrary, discriminatory and collusive manner, approved such bids, while rejecting that of petitioner. It is alleged that respondent nos. 16 and 17 did not ever posses the requisite credentials to qualify, yet their bids were entertained, whereas the petitioner’s bid was rejected dehors the terms of tender. In view of clause 18.3 of the tender conditions, the bids of respondent no. 16 to 18 were liable to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s technical bid was effected without due consideratation of the documents and credentials furnished by the petitioner, which were, in fact, better to those of private respondents.

7. It was further submitted that respondent no. 18 has failed to submit the tender application form, the bidders undertaking, the bank solvency certificate and the performance certificate duly authenticated by the Notary Public as mandatory requirement under tender conditions. Despite such deficiency in the documents submitted in the tender, his bid was accepted, which vitiates the entire process. Hence, the bids of the respondent nos. 16 to 18 are liable to be rejected and fresh tender should be issued.

8. Learned counsel submitted the work order issued in favour of the respondent no. 17 beyond the expiry of the maximum period of 120 days as prescribed under E-Tender is illegal. The respondent authority did not comply with the clause 6 of the tender dated 27.05.2019. Therefore, the respondent authority acted arbitrarily and whimsically and rejected the technical bid of the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel finally argued that when the respondent authority violates its own tender process with mala fide intention, arbitrarily or for collateral purpose, in such case, the Court is not po