Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhajit Som vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Appellate Side)
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Reserved on: 19/02/2021
Pronounced on: 02/03/2021
WPA (P) 48 of 2021
Subhajit Som
........Petitioner
Through:-
Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate
...present through VC with
M/s. Rajarshi Dutta and Avirup Chatterjee,
Advocates
...present in Court
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
........Respondents
Through:-
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Advocate General
Mr. Sayan Sinha, Advocate
... Advocate, present through VC
Ms. Sumita Shaw and Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee,
Advocates
...present in Court
Coram: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The petitioner, who claims himself to be working as a clerk with an
Advocate at Baruipur Court, has filed the present petition in public interest raising an
2 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
issue that for procurement of LED street lights the instructions issued by the
Government of West Bengal have been violated by the Chandernagore Municipal
Corporation (for short 'the Corporation').
2. At the very outset, Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General
appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding locus of the
petitioner to file the present petition in public interest. He submitted that it is a proxy
litigation by some of the business house who may not have been successful in the
tendering process. Credentials of the petitioner are not there to show that he is a
public spirited person, who had earlier filed petition raising any issue of larger public
interest. In the absence thereof, the present petition, filed for an oblique motive,
deserves to be thrown out at the threshold. He referred to Rules framed by this Court
regarding entertainment of the public interest litigation. His argument is that there is
complete violation thereof and in terms of Rules 56 and 57 the present petition does
not deserve to be entertained. In support reliance was placed upon judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported at
(2010) 3 SCC 402.
3. He further argued that the petitioner claimed that he is working as a law
clerk with an advocate in Baruipur Court. He is a resident of Garia East Boalia,
District-South 24 Paraganas and the cause sought to be expounded is pertaining to
Chandernagore. Hence, it cannot be justified on any ground that the petitioner will
have any interest for the area where he is not living. However, no judgment specifying
the territorial limits for a petitioner to raise an issue in public interest, has been cited.
4. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the
arguments raised by the learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is a
proxy litigant, who is espousing the cause of any business house, is not made out from
any affidavit or document placed on record by the respondent. The petitioner is
3 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
working as a law clerk with an Advocate at Baruipur Court. When he came to know
about the illegalities committed by the Corporation, immediately the present petition
was filed. It is a question of saving public money. Once the cause has been espoused
by the petitioner, where he is not personally interested and the result thereof is
procurement of quality product at competitive rates by the Corporation, the Court can
always entertain and interfere in the subject- matter.
5. As far as the merits of the controversy is concerned, he submitted that the
Government of West Bengal, Department of Urban Development and Municipal
Affairs had issued instructions to various authorities including all the
Chairpersons/Administrators of Urban Local Bodies, Commissioners of all the
Municipal Corporations and C.E.O/E.O. of all Development Authorities vide
No.1528(3)-UDMA-13013(99)/3/2020-ESTT-TCP SEC-Dept. of UDMA dated
December 08, 2020 providing technical specifications, for procurement of LED street
lights under Green City Mission Project. It was mentioned in the aforesaid
communication that the instructions issued are required to be strictly adhered to. The
documents annexed with the instructions provided for technical specifications for
LED street lights also includes the period of warranty. It is also provided for a vendor
list giving names of the manufacturers and the models for different wattage of LED
lights. It further provided that the procurement can be of 'Any Other Reputed Make
Having Same Technical Specifications Attached'. However, while inviting the
tenders, the Corporation vide Memo No.3133/TP Cell/Tender/2020/10 dated January
15, 2021 clearly violated the directions issued by the Government. It provided for a
warranty of three years as against seven years provided in the technical specifications
issued by the Government. Besides this, as against four brands of different
manufacturers mentioned in the instructions issued by the Government, in addition to
any other reputed brand having the same specifications, the offers were invited only
4 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
from three manufacturers. It limited the process of competition. In fact, it was nothing
else but monopolisation of the trade. The other reputed manufacturers of the LED
lights with same wattage and fulfilling the technical specifications could not
participate in the process. As a result, the Corporation would suffer immense loss. It
will be a drain on the public exchequer. It was nothing else but favouritism. He
further submitted that the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the list
provided in the instructions issued by the Government is not exhaustive but
indicative. The submission was that in that eventuality there could be more vendors,
who should have been allowed to participate in the process. Rather the manner in
which the tender has been issued by the Corporation shows that the manufacturers
have been specified. It is nothing else, but showing favour to them. In support of the
argument reliance were placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Akhil
Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported at (2011)5 SCC 29,
Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. reported at (2012) 3
SCC 1 and Institute of Law, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. reported
at (2015) 1 SCC 720.
6. In response, the learned Advocate General submitted that the instructions
issued by the Government provided for adherence to the technical specifications and
not the brand name. There is nothing in tender issued by the Corporation which
violates the instructions issued by the Government. The technical specifications are
built in the models of different manufacturers as specified in the list of vendors
circulated to various authorities for procurement of LED street lights. It is not the case
of the petitioner that the technical specifications have been violated. There could also
be one brand specified for procurement of any item by the Government. Reference
was made to the technical specifications as provided in the instructions issued by the
Government. He however, could not respond to the difference in the technical
5 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
specifications provided in the instructions regarding warranty of the LED lights as
compared to one provided in the tender document. In the instructions the period
provided was for seven years whereas in the tender document the period provided was
three years.
7. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. reported at
(1999) 1 SCC 492 and Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported at (1994) 6 SCC
651 to submit that in tender and policy matters the Court should not normally
intervene as delay in execution of projects is not in larger public interest. The Court
cannot examine which of the terms can be better as it is always for the experts to
decide the same. He further submitted that the financial bids have been opened. The
lowest bidder has quoted rates 28.05% less than the estimated rate, Work order was
issued on February 04, 2021. However, considering the pendency of the present
petition in this Court, he had issued instructions to the Corporation not to take any
supplies.
8. Learned Advocate General did not state anything on the issue regarding
procurement of the material from the GeM portal (Government e-Marketplace).
9. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the relevant referred
record.
10. Before proceeding to deal with the issues on merits, this Court would
deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General regarding
maintainability of the present petition with reference to locus of the petitioner. One of
the grounds, raised was that the petitioner, who claims to be working as a law clerk in
Baruipur Court and is resident of Garia East Boalia, District-South 24 Paraganas, but
the cause sought to be raised is of Chadernagore Muncipal Corporation area. As the
petitioner is not resident of that area he could not possibly raise the issue pertaining
6 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
thereto. The concept of territorial jurisdiction with reference to residence of a
petitioner, who approaches the Court raising an issue in larger public interest was
sought to be raised. However, we do not find any merit in the submission made.
Residence of a person will not limit his right to espouse the cause, which may be in
larger public interest. His residential area does not bind him to raise the dispute only
pertaining to that area. There are number of issues considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various petitions filed in larger public interest by the NGOs who are
based in Delhi or at other places in the country expousing various issues pertaining to
different places in the country. What has been opined by the Court is that, if a person
files a writ petition raising certain issue of public importance, which may have some
relation with his private interest as well, it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the
matter and to see whether entertainment of the petition is in larger public interest or
not. Reference for the purpose can be made from the relevant para of the Akhil
Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress's case (supra) as extracted below:-
"80. ......That apart, as held in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs.
Mahesh Madhav Gosavi reported as (1987) 1 SCC 227, even if a
person files a writ petition for vindication of his private interest
but raises question of public importance involving exercise of
power by men in authority then it is the duty of the court to
enquire into the matter."
11. The issue regarding locus of a petitioner to file a petition in public
interest was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Institute of Law,
Chandigarh & Ors's case (supra). It was opined that wherever any public wrong is
caused by the act or omission by a public authority, any member of the public acting
bona fide can maintain a petition for redressal of such public wrong or injury. The
principle that only the person affected can raise a grievance stands relaxed. It is to be
examined that the person who raises the grievances is not a mere busybody or a
7 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
meddlesome interloper. It is true that the risk of legal action against the State or public
authority by any citizen induces such authorities to act with great responsibility. The
locus of a litigant approaching the Court in public interest has to be examined by the
Court keeping in view the facts of each case as there cannot be any straight jacket
formula laid down for the purpose. Relevant paras are extracted below:-
"19. Further, as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is
a resident of State of Punjab and is also an income tax payee. It
has neither been shown nor proved by the appellants that he is a (i)
meddlesome interloper,(ii) that he is acting under mala fide
intention, or (iii) that he has been set up by someone for settling
his personal scores with Chandigarh Administration or the allottee.
20. Dealing with the question of locus standi of the writ
petitioner, we would like to refer to certain decisions of this Court
to hold that the writ petition filed by the first respondent is a public
interest litigation to protect public interest. In Fertilizer Corpn.
Kamgar Union Vs. Union of India reported as (1981) 1 SCC 568,
the Constitution Bench of this Court has held as under: ( SCC
pp.581 & 589, paras 29 & 47-48)
"29. Where does the citizen stand, in the context
of the democracy of judicial remedies, absent of an
ombudsman? In the face of ( rare, yet real) misuse of
administrative power to play ducks and drakes with
the public exchequer, especially where developmental
expansion necessarily involves astronomical
expenditure and concomitant corruption, do public
bodies enjoy immunity from challenge save through
the post-mortem of Parliamentary organs. What is the
role of the judicial process, read in the light of the
dynamics of legal control and corporate autonomy?
47. Nevertheless, the broad parameters of
fairness in administration, bona fides in action, and the
8 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
fundamental rules of reasonable management of public
business, if breached, will become justiciable.
48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or
officious intervener without any interest or concern
beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million
people of this country, the door of the court will not be
ajar for him. But, if he belongs to an organization
which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he
has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he
cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the
issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be
considered. I, therefore, take the view that the present
petition would clearly have been permissible under
Article 226".
21. Similarly, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
reported at (1981) Supp SCC 87 this Court has categorically
laid down the law in relation to locus standi as under: (SCC p.
212-13, 215 & 218, paras 18-20 & 23)
"18. ...whenever there is a public wrong or public
injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a
public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or
the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The
strict rule of standing which insists that only a person
who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an
action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is
evolved which gives standing to any member of the
public who is not a mere busybody or meddlesome
interloper but who has sufficient interest in the
proceeding. There can be no doubt that the risk of legal
action against the State or a public authority by any
citizen will induce the State or such public authority to
9 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
act with greater responsibility and care thereby
improving the administration of justice. ...
It is also necessary to point out that if no one can have
standing to maintain an action for judicial redress in
respect of a public wrong or public injury, not only will
the cause of the legality suffer but the people not having
any judicial remedy to redress such public wrong or
public injury may turn to the street and in that process,
the rule of law will be seriously impaired...
19. There is also another reason why the rule of
locus standi needs to be liberalised. Today we find that
law is being increasingly used as device of organised
social action for the purpose of bringing about socio-
economic change. The task of national reconstruction
upon which we are engaged has brought about
enormous increase in developmental activities and law
is being utilised for the purpose of development, social
and economic. It is creating more and more a new
category of rights in favour of large sections of people
and imposing a new category of duties on the State and
the public officials with a view to reaching social
justice to the common man... In other words, the duty is
one which is not correlative to any individual rights.
Now if breach of such public duty were allowed to go
unredressed because there is no one who has received a
specific legal injury or who was entitled to participate
in the proceedings pertaining to the decision relating to
such public duty, the failure to perform such public duty
would go unchecked and it would promote disrespect
for the rule of law. It would also open the door for
corruption and inefficiency because there would be no
check on exercise of public power except what may be
provided by the political machinery, which at the best
would be able to exercise only a limited control at
worst, might become a participant in misuse or abuse of
10 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
power. It would also make the new social collective
rights and interests created for the benefit of the
deprived sections of the community meaningless and
ineffectual.
20. ..If public duties are to enforced and social
collective 'diffused' rights and interest are to be
protected, we have to utilise the initiative and zeal of
public-minded persons and organizations by allowing
them to move the court and act for a general or group
interest, even though, they may be directly injured in
their own rights. It is for this reason that in public
interest litigation- litigation undertaken for the purpose
of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty,
protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and
interests or vindicating public interest , any citizen who
is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest has to
be accorded standing. What is sufficient interest to give
standing to a member of the public would have to be
determined by the court in individual case. It is not
possible for the court to lay down any hard-and-fast
rule or any straitjacket formula for the purpose of
defining or delimiting 'sufficient interest'. It has
necessarily to be left to the discretion of the court.
23. We would therefore, hold that any member
of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an
action for judicial redress for public injury arising from
breach of the public duty or from violation of some
provisions of the Constitutions or the law and seek
enforcement of such public duty and observance of such
constitutional or legal provisions." (emphasis supplied)
12. Reference can also be made to paras 99-101 of the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others's
case (supra), wherein it was opined that, the power of judicial review can be
11 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
exercised in larger public interest when a public interest is exposed. It is the duty
of the Court to examine the matter to ensure that the institutional integrity is not
compromised by those on whom the people have reposed trust. The relevant
portions are extracted below:-
"99. In majority of the judgments relied upon by the
learned Attorney General and the learned counsel for the
respondents, it has been held that the power of judicial review
should be exercised with great care and circumspection and the
Court should not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of
the Government in financial matters. There cannot be any quarrel
with the proposition that the Court cannot substitute its opinion for
the one formed by the experts in the particular field and due
respect should be given to the wisdom of those who are entrusted
with the task of framing the policies. We are also conscious of the
fact that the Court should not interfere with the fiscal policies of
the State. However, when it is clearly demonstrated that the policy
framed by the State or its agency/instrumentality and/or its
implementation is contrary to public interest or is violative of the
constitutional principles, it is the duty of the Court to exercise its
jurisdiction in larger public interest and reject the stock plea of the
State that the scope of judicial review should not be exceeded
beyond the recognised parameters.
100. When matters like these are brought before the
judicial constituent of the State by public-spirited citizens, it
becomes the duty of the Court to exercise its power in larger
public interest and ensure that the institutional integrity is not
compromised by those in whom the people have reposed trust and
who have taken an oath to discharge duties in accordance with the
Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-
will and who, as any other citizen, enjoy fundamental rights and, at
the same time, are bound to perform the duties enumerated in
Article 51-A. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to
12 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
the judgment of the three-Judge Bench headed by Kapadia, C.J. in
Centre for PIL vs. Union of India reported as (2011) 4 SCC 1.
101. Before concluding, we consider it imperative to
observe that but for the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who
held important constitutional and other positions and discharged
their duties in larger public interest and non-governmental
organisations who have been constantly fighting for clean
governance and accountability of the constitutional institutions,
unsuspecting citizens and the Nation would never have known
how the scarce natural resource spared by the Army has been
grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been able
to manipulate the system."
13. The judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Raunaq
International Ltd.'s case (supra) cited by learned Advocate General will not come to
the rescue of the respondents as, the facts in that case are altogether different. The
issue raised in the aforesaid judgment was regarding construction of thermal power
station wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that on account of delay there
could be cost overrun. It was further found that the decision had been taken bona fide
on legitimate considerations and not arbitrarily. The judgment in Tata Cellular's case
(supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case as the Court is also not sitting over the
decision of the experts, as a Court of appeal. Rather is examining the allegation of the
petitioner that the instructions issued by the Government itself are not being followed
by the authorities to whom these are addressed. The binding nature thereof is not in
dispute.
14. In the case in hand, no doubt, it is sought to be argued that the petitioner
may be a proxy litigant but there is nothing on record to substantiate that argument.
No material has been placed on record to suggest that he has his own interest in the
litigation. All what could be gathered from the pleadings or the arguments addressed
13 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
is regarding violation of the instructions issued by the Government to various
authorities for procurement of LED street lights.
15. The rules pertaining to entertainment of public interest litigation as
framed by this Court will also not debar entertainment of the present petition where
on facts it is found that the issue raised is in larger public interest, where public
money is involved.
16. Now coming to the merits of the controversy, the Government of West
Bengal, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs issued instructions
to all the Chairpersons/Administrators of Urban Local Bodies, Commissioners of all
the Municipal Corporations and C.E.O/E.O., of all Development Authorities vide
No.1528(3)-UDMA-13013(99)/3/2020-ESTT-TCP SEC-Dept. of UDMA dated
December 08, 2020. These instructions pertain to procurement of LED street lights
under Green City Mission. These instructions provide for technical specifications and
direction was issued for strict adherence thereof. The detailed project report had to be
prepared as per the technical specifications, vendor list provided along with the
instructions. Annexures attached to the aforesaid communication provided for
specifications such as mechanical, electrical, optical besides providing for test
report/warranty. One of the important condition mentioned in the 'test
reports/warranty' is that luminaries shall have seven years replacement warranty from
actual date of completion of work including driver/control gear, LED, all accessories,
etc. A vendor list is also annexed along with instructions which provided for different
brands and the models thereof for procurement of LED street lights of different
wattage. Besides, mentioning four brands along with the relevant models it was
further provided therein that 'Or Any Reputed Make Having Same Technical
Specifications Attached.' The relevant technical specifications and the vendor list are
extracted below:-
14 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
"MECHANICAL SPECIFICATION
HOUSING/CONSTRUCTION
LED Street Light luminaries should be powder coated and
housed in a single piece Pressure die cast non-corrosive
Aluminium alloy enclosure with optimal fins for Heat Sink
Mechanism.
Luminaries should have UV stabilized, Injection molded
heat resistant PC lens cum cover.
Luminaries must have Thermally Isolated Driver of same
make and Optical compartments for efficient heat
management and to ensure sustainable operation.
The fixture shall have Ingress Protection of IP 66 Rating for
both for Optical & Electrical Compartments.
IP Test Report for the same need to be furnished from any
Govt. Approved or NABL accredited Laboratory.
Windage area should not exceed 0.125 Sq.Mtr. per fixture
till 150W & 0.17 Sq.Mtr. per fixture till 250W.
Luminaries should be rated with Impact resistance of
minimum IK07.
ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATION
DRIVER
Luminaries should consist of Universal Voltage driver to
handle wide operating voltage range from 140-300V AC
and frequency range of 50± 3% with isolated type
operation in constant current topology.
Driver housing should be made of extruded Aluminium
case and Silicon potted to ensure safety against shock
risk, also increase the reliability against internal heat and
moisture ingress. Potted Driver for luminaries below
45W may be ignored.
Driver shall have high efficiency >80% and have inbuilt
safety features like Over voltage, Short circuit, Over
load, Thermal protection and revrese Polarity protection.
15 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
The luminaries should have an internal surge protection
of 4KV L-L and 6 KV L- and provide integrated SPD
with 10 KV protection. Driver should work continuously
up to 320V AC without any failure.
The driver should be rated for IP66 or more against dust
and moisture for a longer life.
Power Factor shall be Equal to 0.95 or more.
THD of the luminaries shall be <5%.
Driver should preferably be of same make.
LIGHT ENGINE
The light engine should use Metal Core PCB with high
grade aluminium (AL-5052) and should have a thermal
conductivity of >2W/mK.
The Junction temperature of LED shall be <85 degree
Celsius. Thermal Test Report from NABI,
approved/accredited lab will be submitted to support the
same.
Rated Operating Temperature should be 0 degree to + 55
degree C with a relative humidity of 10-95% RH
THD of the luminaries shall be <5%.
OPTICAL SPECIFICATION
Approved make for LED shall be
Nichia/Cree/Osram/Lumileds make LED Chips.
The LED shall be of Surface Mounted Design (SMD).
Life of LED shall be rated at 50,000 hrs. Or above L70.
System Efficacy at Luminaries Level shall be
minimum 120 Lumens/Watt for 90 watt and above and
for luminaries below 90watt above, System Efficacy at
Luminaries Level shall be minimum 115 Lumens/Watt
whereas LED Chip level efficacy shall be minimum
160 Lumens/Watt.
CRI (Colour Rendering Index) shall be >70 or above.
16 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
Correlated Colour Temperature shall be nominal
5700K (with variation limits of ±355K) per ANSI
C78.377A CCT standard.
The light engine should have a suitable secondary
optics to deliver desired light distribution to meet the
luminous criteria.
The luminaries should be capable of withstanding voltage
stress of 440V for 8 hrs., should have an auto shutdown
325V and have an auto recovery feature.
TEST REPORT/WARRANTY
Following reports shall be submitted from NABL
accredited Lab.
(a) IM 79 for Luminaries
(b) IP 66 or more Test for Luminaries
(c) Driver IP 66 & IEC 61000-4-5
(d) IK 07 Test Report
(e) Thermal Test Report
(f) Compliance to IEC 60598: Type Test Report
(g) Compliance to IEC 61347-2-13: Driver Test
Report
(h) Compliance to IEC 6238-1: Driver Performance
Test Report
(i) Compliance to IEC 61547: EMI and EMC (k)
Compliance to CISPR-15
Bidder shall provide LM 80 report from LED chip
manufacturer and will carry Watermark of
Luminaire manufacturer
Luminaries shall have seven years replacement
warranty from actual date of completion of work
including Driver/Control Gear, LED, all
accessories etc.
The manufacturers of the Luminaries must have its
own R & D wing within house testing facility are
redirected by NABL
17 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
Drivers & Luminaries should have mandatorily
BIS certified
CE Certified
ROHS compliant
The manufacturer should submit the following in-house
testing facility along with bid for quality checks:
(a) Test Bench for EMI/EMC measurement.
(b) Test Bench for high voltage, surge, burst and
voltage dips.
(c) Test Chamber for humidity and temperature
environmental testing.
(d) Photometry Laboratory with Gonio photometer
and/or Integrating Sphere for complete light
fixture, to be able to create IES files."
IMPORTANT NOTE
The Manufacturer Name and Logo should be
engraved/Embossed on the housing/body to allow
traceability till the life of the fixture. No sticker will
be accepted.
Lighting Supplier shall have his own
Manufacturing, Powder coating and assembly facility
The project shall be awarded only after
witnessing the production and assembly of teh
Luminaire in the Supplier's Manufacturing facility.
Design Requirement Conformity: All lighting
design must be done in Dialux Software latest version
with design maintenance factor not greater than 0.85
Original Design done in Dialux to be submitted and
original IES file used for the design to be submitted.
The average minimum lux level should be as per
ISIS1944:Part 1&2: 1972
Tender Procedure for Procurement of LED
Luminaries & Evaluation Committee:-
18 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
Two bid system of Notice is compulsory.
Requirement of Lumen output should be
property addressed in the notice & bidder should be
encouraged to provide maximum lumen output with
minimum watt so the power consumption should be
low.
A technical committee with sufficient technical
experience should be constructed for technical
evaluation and acceptance of the technical bid would
only be carried out after evaluation.
Strict Penal action including prohibition of
future participation should be included in the notice
for any wrong and wilful statement".
(emphasis supplied)
"VENDOR LIST
For 30W Street Light Luminary Complete
Make and Model No.:
1. Bajaj (Model No.ENXTP30LWHCRPCSD)
2. Philips (Model No.BRP045LED32CWMR1S1
PSU GR SPD)
3. Crompton (Model No.LSTS-30-CDL-M)
4. Havells (Model No.ENDURA CITYLITE
PLATPLU SSL 30W LED 757SASY BO PC)
OR ANY Reputed Make Having Same Technical
Specification Attached.
For 45 Watt
Make and Model No.:
1. Bajaj (Model No.ENXTP54LWWCRPCSD)
2. Philips (Model No.BRP056LED47 PSU S1)
3. Crompton (Model No.LSTS-45-CDL-M)
4. Havells (Model No.ENDURA CITYLITE
PLATPLU SSL 45W LED 757SASY BO PC)
19 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
OR ANY Reputed Make Having Same Technical
Specification Attached.
For 60 Watt
Make and Model No.:
1. Bajaj (Model No.ENXTP60LWH CRPCSD)
2. Philips (Model No.BRP062 LED 65 CW SLC S1
PSU)
3. Crompton (Model No.LSTS-60-CDL-M)
4. Havells (Model No.ENDURA CITYLITE
PLATPLU SSL 60W LED 757SASY BO PC)
OR ANY Reputed Make Having Same Technical
Specification Attached.
For 90 Watt
Make and Model No.:
1. Bajaj (Model No.BRTFG120W LEDCR)
2. Philips (Model No.BRP406 LED 130 CW SLC
FG PSU GR V2)
3. Crompton (Model No.LSTS-90-CDL-M)
4. Havells (Model No.ENDURA PEARL LMAG
SL120W LED 757PASY TOP CASTHO)
OR ANY Reputed Make Having Same Technical
Specification Attached."
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Corporation issued Notice Inviting e-Tender (for short 'NIT') on
January 15, 2021 for supply and installation of 25, 45 and 90 watt LED street lights.
Condition No.6 in the NIT provides that the bidder will have to maintain the
installation for a period of three years from the date of successful completion of the
work. The relevant clause is reproduced hereunder:-
"6. The prospective Bidder shall have to execute the
work in such a manner so that the appropriate service level of the
work is maintained during the progress of work and a period of 3
20 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
(Three) year from the date of successful completion of the work to
the entire satisfaction of the Authority. If any defect/ damage are
found during the period as mentioned above, the contractor shall
make the same good at his own co to the specifications at par with
the instant project work. On failure to do so, penal action against
the contractor will be imposed by the Department as deemed fit.
The contractor may quote his rate considering the above aspect.
Refund of Security Deposit will only be made after successful
maintaining of appropriate service level of the work as mentioned
above 3 (Three) year from the date of completion of the work.
Terms and Conditions of Chandernagore Municipal Corporation
shall be treated superseded. Vide Order No-
592/1((125)/MA/10/3S-21/2013 dt. October 28, 2016."
18. The aforesaid specification of period of three years runs totally contrary
to the instructions issued by the Government providing for replacement warranty for a
period of seven years.
19. Further in the price schedule while providing for description of the items
to be procured for 25, 45 and 90 watt of LED street lights, three brand names were
mentioned, namely, Philips, Havells and Crompton. Warranty period of five years has
been provided in the manner as follows:-
No. Text# No.# Text No.# No.# Text#
# #
Sl Item Description Quantity Unit Estimate Total Total Amount
No. s d Rate Amount in words
without
Taxes
1 Supply of 25 Watt LED 1187.00 each 1095.00 1299765 INR Twelve
street Light [Make- Lakh Ninety
Philips/ Havels/ Nine
Crompton Brand Thousand
Warranty Period- 5 Seven Hundred
Years, BIS (IS 16107, & Sixty Five
10322) approved] Ref: Only
NIT No.- IA/T/2020-
2021/106,Dt.
09/09/2020
21 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
2 Supply of 45 Watt LED 213.00 each 1997.00 425361 INR Four Lakh
street Light [Make- Twenty Five
Philips/ Havels/ Thousand
Crompton Brand Three Hundred
Warranty Period- 5 & Sixty One
Years, BIS (IS 16107, Only.
10322) approved] Ref:
NIT No.- IA/T/2020-
2021/73,Dt. 03/08/2020
3 Supply of 90 Watt LED 13.00 each 3175.00 41275.00 INR Forty One
street Light [Make- Thousand Two
Philips/ Havels/ Hundred &
Crompton Brand Seventy five
Warranty Period- 5 Only
Years, BIS (IS 16107,
10322) approved] Ref:
NIT No.- IA/T/2020-
2021/133,Dt.
12/10/2020
The aforesaid descriptions of items again run totally contrary to the
specifications prescribed by the Government to be strictly adhered to. Firstly, one of
the models was left out and secondly, the more important condition, namely, 'Or Any
Other Reputed Make Having Same Technical Specifications Attached', was totally
missed out. It made the tendering process brand specific and not generic. Once
replacement warranty was required for a specified period any reputed manufacturer
having the same specifications as provided by the Government in the instructions
issued, should have been permitted to participate. In fact, while issuing the NIT the
Corporation has violated the instructions issued by the Government and as a result it
may have caused loss to the public exchequer, which is always short of funds and is
sourced by the taxes collected from the public, hence, the public can always hold
them accountable. In fact in the case in hand, if the State had issued the instructions to
the lower authorities, it should have ensured compliance thereof, instead of defending
the action of the lower authority which was in violation of the instructions.
20. The stand taken by the respondent that the vendor list is not exhaustive
but only indicative goes against them. If the vendor list is not exhaustive the tender
condition should have permitted more reputed manufacturers to participate in the
22 WPA (P) 48 of 2021
tendering process. However, the case in hand is otherwise, as even the vendor list
provided by the Government in the instructions issued has not been followed.
21. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why the procurement of
materials is not being made by the Corporation through the GeM portal, which has
now stabilised and is a platform on which both the buyers and suppliers meet without
forming a cartel. There is not much delay also in procurement of materials.
22. As in the case in hand this Court is not required to examine the policy or
the decision taken by the experts by super imposing its own opinion on any technical
issues, it makes out a case for interference as the simple issue raised in the petition is
regarding non-adherence of the instructions issued by the Government to various local
authorities for strict compliance. The binding nature thereof is not in dispute.
23. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned NIT is quashed. The
Corporation is at liberty to issue fresh NIT strictly in terms of the specifications
provided by the Government and also explore the possibility of procurement of
material on GeM portal.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE
(ANIRUDDHA ROY)
JUDGE
Kolkata
02/03/2021
-------------------
PA
