Santosh Purushottam Purohit vs State of Meghalaya

Mr. S.R. Sen, J.(Oral) - Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:

"The petitioner in the instant case is a victimised disqualified bidder in the NIT No. DSCA.62/2015/124 dated 26.03.2016 wherein the Petitioner suffers from the serious rights to natural justice and after bidding the Petitioner was merely disqualified on the ground due to non submission of documents required in respect of 1 Kg Packing Unit in spite of submitting the requisite documents along with documents provided by one of the Sugar Manufacturer in Maharashtra, further the Petitioner requested the Respondent for the amendment and necessary correction of clause 11 and sub clause (d) of the instant NIT in question to which the Respondent turned a deaf ear to the petitioner and disqualified the petitioner and thus the aggrieved petitioner has approached this Honourable Court to intervene and institute justice by way of cancellation and further recall of the instant tender in question and further no work order to be placed by the Respondent."

Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the bidder in response to NIT dated 26th March, 2016 for supply of PDS Sugar in the State of Meghalaya but he has simply been disqualified on technical grounds. Hence, he approached the Court by way of this writ petition. She also made it clear that the petitioner, Shri. Santosh Purushottam Purohit is a representative of the company called M/s Garden Court Distilleries Private Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra State, India. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the NIT in question maybe recalled with changes in clause 11. She vehemently and forcefully argued to establish her case.

On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that in this instant case, the process of tendering is complete and that it needs to be settled on or before 30-06-2016 otherwise the entire scheme will lapse for this quarter. He also pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the disqualification for which he was not accepted as a successful bidder and pointed out to clause 11(d) of the NIT at page 38 and further submits that the petitioner does not have a unit for packing sugar in the State of Meghalaya or nearby which is one of the important precondition of the NIT. Learned Sr. counsel also further submits that after participating in the tender process in response to the NIT dated 26th March, 2016, the petitioner cannot come at this stage only after becoming an unsuccessful bidder, so the petition needs to be dismissed.

After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels at the bar, the crux issue which evolved before this Court is the ground raised by the petitioner in this petition which can be considered at this stage?

From the pleading of the parties, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not challenge the ground of disqualification as shown in Annexure � X (page 231) of the petition where it is clearly mentioned "Garden Court Distilleries Private Limited due to non-submission of documents required in respect of 1 Kg packing unit." Now, if I look back at the NIT at clause 11, one of the precondition was that a bidder must have 1 Kg packing unit in Meghalaya or nearby for close monitoring of quality, packing and delivery of sugar which in my view may help to supply better quality sugar to the common people. Therefore, I do not find any reason to record that clause 11(d) is bad in any manner. Since it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has no 1 Kg packing unit in the State of Meghalaya or nearby at the time of submitting the tender, respondents authority has rightly turned down his bid. Besides that, we must remember that sugar is meant for the common people under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS), so more care should be taken so that inferior quality sugar is not supplied to them.

For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, it stands dismissed and disposed of. As a consequence, the order dated 25-05-2016 stands vacated. Parties are to bear their own costs.