AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging non-acceptance of the writ petitioner as L-1 in a tender process for
printing of question papers in examinations being held by the respondent no.3. The writ petitioner no.2 appears in person and submits that notice
inviting e-tender came out on February 6, 2018. The date of closure for submission of bid was February 26, 2018 and the opening date of the technical
proposal was to be done on February 28, 2018. The date of opening of financial proposal was to be communicated after opening of the technical bid.
The writ petitioner further submits that on 29th March, 2018 the financial bid was opened and on the website of the e-procurement system of
Government of West Bengal, the writ petitioner was declared as the L-I bidder.
The writ petitioner thereafter enquired from the respondent no.3 as to when the agreement would be signed and work order was to be issued by a
letter dated April 3, 2018. Thereafter, on April 6, 2018 when the petitioner no.2 visited the office of the respondent no.3 he was informed verbally that
the tender had been awarded to another agency. No reason for the same was provided to the writ petitioners and till date there is no communication
from the respondent no.3 to the writ petitioners as to why writ petitioner-Company was not awarded the tender and it was granted to someone else.
The respondents are present through their authorised representatives. It is their case that the e-procurement website does not allow for the quantities
of different items to be showed on the website. It is their further case that since there is no certainty of the number of question papers or the number
of examinations to be held, they are unable to show the quantities involved in the tender process on the website. They further submit that the tender
was awarded to the person who was the L-I bidder and the petitioner in fact, was the L-3 bidder and the bid amount of the petitioner is more than one
and half times that that of the L-I bidder.
The respondents handed over a document that contains a chart of the exact quantities of the different items and the exact bid amount of the three
bidders in the process.
The writ petitioner no.2 submits that the bid of the respondent no.9 (to whom the tender has been awarded) as seen on the website contains rates
other than the rates now being provided by the respondent no.3.
It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the entire process has been carried out in a malafide manner by allowing the respondent no.9 to change
their rate. The explanation being provided by the respondent no.3 is that they have divided the rate given by respondent no.9 by 1,000 as otherwise the
rates would have been absurd. However, the same was not communicated to any party at any stage.
The only explanation of the respondent no.3 is that the examinations are pending and any delay in the process would result in great harm to the
students.
What is surprising to note is that inspite of the fact that the technical bid was open on February 28, 2018, it took the respondents over a month to
accept the financial bid and even when the same was done, the same showed the writ petitioner to be the L-I bidder on the website. Contrary to the
information published on the website, the respondents chose to award the same to a third party being the respondent no.9 without bothering to even
inform the petitioners. Furthermore, it is clear that the figure provided by respondent no.9 on the website in the financial bid was not the final figure
taken by the respondent no.3 in awarding the tender to the respondent no.9. The entire process stinks of nepotism and malafide action by the
respondent no.3. The logic and reason for awarding the tender to respondent no.9 given in Court today should have been communicated to the writ
petitioners 15 days back. Instead of that the respondent no.3 chose to keep quiet and allowed time to pass so that they can use the excuse of pending
examinations to justify their action. This kind of action and abuse of power by an authority being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India
cannot be permitted.
The issue that arises in this writ petition is whether an authority can disregard the result of a tender process published on the website and award the
tender to a party that is not L-1 as published in the website? The second issue that arises is that even if the above action of the authority is justified,
can the authority do so without following the principles of transparency as envisaged in a E-tender process.
In the present case, the authorities have justified their actions by resorting to the plea that as there is no certainty in the number of question papers and
the number of examinations to be conducted, hence, they are unable to quantify the same on the website. In my view, the above contention has no
merit whatsoever as the authorities have themselves conceded that approximate figures are available and the same is mentioned in the tender
document. The very process of filling in the quantities of different items subsequent to the end of the financial bid is perverse and full of infirmities
leaving scope of wholesome manipulation that would render the entire purpose of a transparent system by adhering to a Etender system nugatory.
Furthermore, the very fact that the authorities chose deliberately not to communicate the final results to the bidding parties leads one to believe that the
process is not transparent and riddled with holes. Even after the petitioner wrote a letter on April 3, 2018 to the Registrar (Acting) being the
respondent no. 4 herein, no reply was received by the petitioners. The action of the respondent in awarding the tender to a person who was not L-1 as
per the website without even bothering to communicate the changed circumstances and without assigning any reasons is palpably illegal and cannot be
sustained in law.
In the light of the above reasons, the process of tender followed by the respondent no.3 is quashed. The respondent no.3 is directed to immediately
initiate a fresh tender process being guided by the principles enunciated above that may be completed in a time-bound manner.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
Documents submitted in Court today are kept with the record.