Help Line Welfare Organization vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a non-governmental organisation (NGO), has urged this court for quashing the work order under No.F.3(4-59)- PLAN/DHS/2013/4028-44 dated 25.03.2017 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] issued in pursuance to the expression of interest [EOI] under No.F.3(4-59)-PLAN/DHS/2013/2739 dated 14.12.2016 on the premises that the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the successful bidder and to get the work order in terms of the said EOI.

Ms. S. Deb Gupa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though the petitioner has quoted the lowest rate (L1), but the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 having resorted to gross arbitrariness discarded their tender for three hospitals viz. (i) Cancer Hospital, Agartala (ii) District Hospital, Khowai (iii) District Hospital, South Tripura at Santirbazar. The petitioner had not quoted any rate for the District Hospital, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, Modern Psychiatric Hospital, Narsinghar, Agartala and District Hospital, Gomati at Tepania, Udaipur. But the respondent No.4 quoted rates for all the hospitals.

In para-7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that the respondent No.3 has declared the petitioner as the successful bidder in respect of those three hospitals and assured that the petitioner they would get the work order from the respondents. But when in the first week of February, 2017 the representative of the petitioner met the respondent No.3 it was informed that the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 did not submit the cost analysis of the consumable items with the financial bid and accordingly their rate was not considered along with the tenderers. The petitioner in this respect has stated as follows:

"It is mentioned that at the time of opening of financial bid the said authorized person himself scrutinized the relevant papers in respect of financial bid and after proper scrutiny he declared the petitioner as successful bidder in respect of aforesaid three hospitals. Moreover, the petitioner duly submitted the said chart of charges of consumable items along with financial bid."

The respondents even though have filed the reply, but did not traverse that part of the averment leaving the court in quandary. However, as asked by this court, the respondents have produced the entire records of the tender proceeding. The respondents had prepared a comparative statement showing the rates quoted by the different bidders/tenderers who had submitted valid documents and whose technical bids were accepted for sweeping, cleaning & round the clock up-keeping of different hospitals under the Health and Welfare Department in pursuance of the said EOI vide No.F.3(4-59)-PLAN/DHS/2013 dated 14.12.2016. In the comparative statement, the Scrutiny Committee has made following comment:

"Invalid: due to not mentioning material cost separately as per EOI."

The said comparative statement has been duly signed by the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee and its Members. It is believed that the said comparative statement has been made on the basis of the available documents and on proper scrutiny.

Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has quite strenuously argued that the petitioner had submitted the cost analysis showing the rates of the consumable items of the said work. In the course of submission she referred to the pages 38 and 39 of the writ petition, where this court finds the rates for the three hospitals and it appears that those papers are part of the tender document. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has further contended that the rate quoted by the petitioner is lower than the rate of the respondent No.4. While making reference to the rate, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has referred to the financial bid as submitted by the petitioner in the process wherefrom it surfaces that the rate quoted was only for manual worker at Rs.3,510/- against the Cancer Hospital, Rs.2,730/- against the District Hospital, Khowai and Rs.2,730 against the District Hospital, South Tripura, Santirbazar and no rate has been quoted against the consumable. Against three hospitals, the respondent No.4 quoted the rate per day basis including the material [consumable] cost at Rs.3,542.66, Rs.2,769.33 and Rs.2,769.33.

Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 has submitted that the respondents have categorically stated that the financial bid was incomplete. As per the specification, the material [consumable] cost for chemicals, detergents, equipments and machineries etc. were not given. The petitioner was supposed to submit the cost of materials per day basis hospital-wise in a separate sheet. But the petitioner has not quoted the material cost. From the financial bid, it further surfaces that the petitioner has not even given the rate per day, as was asked for by stipulation in the said EOI.

Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that cleaning or sweeping work cannot be done without the consumable as stated. Therefore, essentially the rate shall constitute of all the consumable goods and the wages of manual workers. If the cost as quoted by the petitioner against the Cancer Hospital Agartala, Khowai District Hospital and Santirbazar Hospital as available from pages 38 and 39 which the petitioner has claimed to have filed with their financial bid is accepted for comparison, the rate would be much higher than the rate that has been referred to the respondent No.4. As such, even if this court on waiving the technicalities considered that the rate quoted by the petitioner was valid, then also the petitioner would not have been the lowest. The analysis based on the records clearly supports contention of the respondents and hence this court does not find any infirmity in the process. As corollary, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Before parting with the records this court is persuaded to observe that the way, the EOI has been phrased, it would breed multifarious disputes. In future the respondents No.1 and 2 shall take extra-care while phrasing the EOI and its conditions.

In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.