Biswanath Saha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4710 Cal

09.09.2021
 SL No. 241
Court No. 24
    (P.M)
                                WPA 13839 of 2021

                                BISWANATH SAHA
                                       Vs
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                             (Via Video Conference)


                                          Mr.   Debabrata Saha Roy,
                                          Mr.   Pingal Bhattacharyya,
                                          Mr.   Subhankar Das,
                                          Mr.   Neil Basu
                                                        ... for the petitioner

                                          Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay,
                                          Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh
                                                ... for the respondent No. 10

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ms. Ipsita Banerjee ... for the State

The matter relates to a tender process which was

initiated by the Block Development Officer, Burwan. The

petitioner and the private respondent both participated in

the said tender process.

According to the petitioner, the rate that he quoted

was the lowest rate. The petitioner submits that after

opening of the bids the rate quoted by the private

respondent was struck off in ink and the lowest rate which

the petitioner had quoted was mentioned therein. In view of

such striking off the previously mentioned rate by the

private respondent, the rate quoted by the petitioner and

the private respondent became the same.

The respondent authority took a decision to cancel

the tender process and thereafter a fresh tender was floated.

An advertisement to that effect was published by the

newspaper. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the

newspaper cutting at page 29 of the writ petition which

mentions that the tender for selection of carrying cum

distribution agent under the mid-day meal is being

published and the last date of submission of the application

was 16th August, 2021. For detail information please visit

the website.

The petitioner did not participate in the said tender.

The petitioner submits that it was the duty of the

respondent authority to intimate him about the cancellation

of the said tender as he happened to be the lowest tenderer.

Fact remains that the private respondent participated

in the second tender process and he was successful.

Though the contract is yet to be executed by and between

the authority and the successful tenderer, the petitioner

submits that as the petitioner was not intimated about the

cancellation of the earlier tender accordingly, he ought to be

given another chance to participate in the tender process.

According to the private respondent, in response to

the notice inviting tender (second call) published in the

office board of the Block Development Officer he

participated in the same and has emerged successful. The

cause of action arose way back on 16th August, 2021 and

the petitioner has approached this Court after the second

tender was opened.

The private respondent relies upon a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Maa Binda

Express Carrier & Anr. - Vs - North East Frontier Railway &

Ors. reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 760 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the competent

authority decided to cancel the tender process, it did not

violate any fundamental right of the appellant nor could the

action of the respondent be termed unreasonable so as to

warrant any interference from this Court. The decision to

cancel the tender process was in no way discriminatory or

mala fide.

The learned advocate representing the State

respondent submits that the details of the cancellation of

the first tender process were mentioned in the website

which was mentioned in the newspaper advertisement. The

same was also published in the office board of the District

Administration. It was the duty and responsibility of the

respondent to go through the detail information that was

available in the website.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both

the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record it

appears that after opening the bids of the first tender the

respondent authorities thought it fit to cancel the same for

any reason whatsoever. The said act of the respondent

authority cannot be termed to be either discriminatory or

mala fide or illegal. Both the parties who were the lowest

tenderer were affected by the same decision of the Block

Development Officer.

The Block Development Officer thereafter proceeded

to publish a further notice inviting application by a fresh

tender. Any person who is or was interested to participate in

the tender, ought to have been vigilant and should have

gone through the details which were made available in the

website of the District Administration, Murshidabad District

and also in the notice Board of the Block Development

Officer.

The petitioner has approached this Court long after

the said process was over. The action of the respondent

authorities in not communicating to the petitioner

specifically as regards cancellation of the first tender will

not be fatal on the part of the respondent authorities in

proceeding with the second tender. The respondents did not

communicate the matter of cancellation of the first tender to

any of the successful tenderers. As such no one can take

any advantage over the other. The private respondent

participated pursuant to the fresh tender and was

successful.

In view of the observations made herein above, no

relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)