Amit Datta vs State Bank Of India And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. The present grievance arises from the petitioner being restrained from participating in a tender, allegedly due to an impression given by the respondent no.1. By relying on the pre-qualification circular annexed at page 24 of the instant writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was specifically mentioned that the tenderers who were already empanelled with the SBI (respondent no.1, Kolkata Circle) need not apply for such further tender. It is argued that, on the basis of such communication, the petitioner did not participate in any further tender, although a corrigendum, annexed at page 76, was issued rectifying the situation as reflected from the document at page 24, thereby extending the last date of submission of offer to 17.00 hours on September 12, 2019. The said corrigendum also included the sentence, that the tenderers who were already empanelled with SBI, Kolkata Circle need to apply afresh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said corrigendum was in gross violation of the previous notification and the petitioner filed a representation for consideration by the respondent no.1 in that regard, which was never considered.

Upon query from Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process even within September 12, 2019, which was the scheduled time as per the corrigendum. However, it is submitted by learned counsel that such non-participation was in view of the previous impression given to the petitioner by virtue of the pre-qualification document annexed at page 24 of the instant writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner was waiting for the consideration of his representation in that regard.

However, the grounds which are given by the petitioner for not participating in the tender process appear to be flimsy.

There was nothing preventing the respondent no.1 from changing the terms of the pre-qualification criteria, prior to commencement of the tender process. It was entirely within the administrative domain of the respondent no.1 to do so, particularly before the tender process started.

The petitioner had ample opportunity to participate in the tender, since by the corrigendum dated September 5, 2019 itself the time for submission offer had been extended up to 17.00 hours on September 12, 2019. In view of the petitioner having failed to avail of the window of a week, given in such corrigendum, the petitioner has not come with clean hands and, as such, this Court cannot interfere with the tender under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly at this belated stage when the tender process is on the verge of being finalized.

Accordingly, W.P.1740 (W) of 2020 is dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from participating in any future tender that may be floated by the respondent no.1 for similar work.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.