Manipal Technologies Ltd. And ... vs Uco Bank And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 860 Cal

Daily List 61
Bpg.

February 3,
2021


                  In the High Court at Calcutta
                    Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                        (Via Video Conference)

                            W.P.A. No.2478 of 2021

                    Manipal Technologies Ltd. and another
                               Versus
                        UCO Bank and others


                         Mr.   Jishnu Saha,
                         Mr.   Ishan Saha,
                         Mr.   Aditya Kanodia,
                         Mr.   Indradeep Basu.
                                     ...for the petitioners.

                         Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhury,
                         Mr. Rajashee Datta,
                         Mr. Malay K. Seal.
                                   ...for the respondents.

The petitioners put in a bid in a tender

floated by the respondent-authorities. Subsequently,

by several communications, the respondents sought

clarifications on the veracity of the declarations and

documents filed by the petitioners in connection with

the bid, particularly regarding compliance of serial

nos.5, 10 and 11 of Clause 3 of the NIT, pertaining to

eligibility criteria. The premise of the clarifications

sought was apparently that certain

proceedings/enquiries were pending in different parts

of the country, including Mumbai, Jaipur, etc. against

the petitioners. The petitioners, on each occasion,

gave reply, furnishing explanations and claiming that

there was no reason to hold the petitioners ineligible

to participate in the tender.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

argues that the subsequent refusal of the bid of the

petitioners was tainted by mala fides and

arbitrariness in the decision-making process and was

de hors the terms of the tender itself.

Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-authorities, in reply, seeks to rely on a

translation of an FIR, in respect of a proceeding in

Mumbai where apparently serious allegations were

raised against the petitioner-company.

Learned counsel further submits that,

contrary to the declarations and subsequent

clarifications given by the petitioners, the Bombay

High Court, in a judgment referred to by the

petitioners in its clarifications, set aside the

cancellation of an examination, which was conducted

under the supervision of the petitioners, only to the

extent of the petitioners therein. It is argued that the

cancellation of the examination as regards the rest of

the candidates was retained by the Bombay High

Court.

In so far as the alleged blacklisting of the

petitioners in a work done for the FCI is concerned,

learned counsel for the respondents argues that the

information obtained under the Right to Information

Act, relied on by the petitioners, indicates that the

petitioners, wrongly or rightly, had been blacklisted

initially, which was subsequently followed by removal

of the name of the petitioners from such list on

August 27, 2020. It is argued that, as on the date of

the initial declaration submitted by the petitioners,

the name of the petitioners were appearing as

blacklisted contractors, thereby vitiating the bona fide

behind the declaration given by the petitioners to the

respondent-authorities.

Learned counsel for the respondents further

contends that the entire scope of the present tender

pertains to issuance of work order by the respondent-

authorities for implementing Fraud Risk Management

System. The very nature of such work necessitates

the benchmarks, as stipulated in the chart given

under the eligibility clause of the NIT, since pendency

of enquiries/investigations/proceedings which might

result in liquidation of the company or by deterrent to

continuity of business of the company with the

petitioners are relevant factors.

It appears from the rival contentions of the

parties that, although the petitioners have raised an

arguable question as to the rejection of the petitioners

as an eligible candidate in the tender, the grounds

offered by the respondents in support of such

rejection are also prima facie relevant in so far as the

nature of the work proposed by the tender is

concerned and keeping in mind the fact that the

tendering authorities have a discretion in the matter

of deciding eligibility. Sufficient doubts have been

prima facie raised regarding the bona fides of the

petitioner while making necessary declarations, which

might ultimately justify the impugned rejection of

tender.

In the circumstances, no interim order of

stay of the tender process is granted. However, since

the petitioners have made out a prima facie case, the

factual versions of both sides ought to come on record

before the matter is finally decided.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to

file their affidavit-in-opposition, annexing all relevant

documents, within a fortnight from date; reply, if any,

to be filed within a week thereafter.

Let the matter be next enlisted for hearing

next on March 2, 2021.

            Any   action   taken   by    the   respondent-

authorities in the meantime         in    respect   of   the

concerned tender shall abide by the result of the writ

petition.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)