M/S Tripura Tubes Private Limited vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 147 Tri

                               Page 1


                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                     W.P.(C) 944/2021
M/S Tripura Tubes Private Limited, A company registered under the
Companies Act, having its registered office at Madhya Banamalipur, East
Thana Road, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West
Tripura, represented by its authorized signatory, Shri Dipanjan Saha
                                                               ---- Petitioner
             Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Public Works Department, Civil Secretariat, New
Capital Complex, Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010, represented
by its Secretary
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (DWS), Government of
Tripura, Pandit Nehru Complex, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, District- West
Tripura
3. The Executive Engineer, Agartala Division No. II, DWS Division,
Banamalipur, near Bhutoria Godown, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, District- West
Tripura
                                                        ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SM Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Dey, Advocate General Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery : 08.02.2023 of Judgment & Order Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment & Order (Oral) 08/02/2023 (T. Amarnath Goud, ACJ)

Heard Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P.

Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. SS

Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Page 2

2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:

 a)    admit this petition;
 b)    Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of

Certiorari shall not be issued calling upon the respondents to place the entire record of the tenders mentioned above before this Hon'ble Court for its kind examination;

bi) as to why a Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued cancelling/quashing the action of the respondents contained in Annexure-21B, Annexure-22A to Annexure- 22G, Annexure-23B and Annexure 24 to the petition;

c) as to why a writ of Mandamus shall not be issued commanding upon the respondents to treat the 10(ten) number of tenders submitted by the petitioners against DNIT Nos. DNIeT No. 32/CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 33/CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 34/CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 26/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 27/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 28/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 30/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021- 22, DNIeT No. 31/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 32/SE/DWSC/ AGT/ 2021-22, DNIeT No. 35/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, as formal and valid on the strength of the Article of Association issued under the Companies Act, as stated;

d) issue writ in the light of the prayers made above and make the rule absolute;

e) in the interim restrain the respondents from finalizing the tenders the numbers of which are given above till disposal of the writ petition; any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed;

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner has submitted 16 number of DNIeT

floated by the respondent no. 3 out of which 6 number of tenders were found

second lowest in rate for which the same were rejected by respondent no.3,

but remaining 10 tenders were also not accepted since they were at lowest

rate. It is the case of the petitioner that those 10 tenders were rejected on the

ground that the petitioner did not submit any proof of enlistment as per

required of the NIT. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents

are proceeding at a high speed to finalise the tenders for issuing work orders

with respect to the said 10 number of tenders in which the petitioner was the

lowest tenderers. The petitioner submitted representation but of no result.

Page 3

Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this

writ petition.

4. During arguments, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner has argued that though the tenders submitted by the

petitioner were of the lowest rate but, the same were rejected by the

respondents arbitrarily on the eligibility criteria. Learned senior counsel has

also urged for re-examination of the tenders by the department and thereafter

to consider the same.

5. Learned Advocate General has fairly submitted that the

disqualification of the petitioner has been erased and subsequently the

petitioner has got his registration and the petitioner is at present doing same

type of work in various departments. Learned Advocate General has also

submitted that except 6 (six) number of tenders, the department shall

reconsider only 10 (ten) number of tenders which were being rejected

earlier.

6. Considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the

petitioner is now facing no disqualification in view of any changed

circumstances. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for reconsideration of his

tenders.

8. In view of the said submission of learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner which is not denied by learned Advocate General appearing for the Page 4

respondents-State, this court directs the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner's tenders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible

preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of

the order. However, it is made clear that earlier disqualification of the

petitioner shall not be referred to while considering the present reference. It is

further clarified that this order shall be confined only in respect of 10 (ten)

number of tenders which are the subject matter of this writ petition, as

explained in para 9 of the writ petition, which reads as under:

"9. That the said information given by the respondent no. 3 being highly surprising to the Managing Director of the petitioner, he met with the respondent no. 2 for redress against such uncalled for decision when the said respondent no. 2 also confirmed him that his 10(ten) number of tenders against DNIT Nos. DNIeT No. 32/CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 33/ CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 34/CE/PWD(DWS)2021-22, DNIeT No. 26/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 27/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 28/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 30/SE/DWSC/AGT/ 2021-22, DNIeT No. 31/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22, DNIeT No. 32/SE/DWSC/ AGT/ 2021-22, DNIeT No. 35/SE/DWSC/AGT/2021-22 have been rejected on the ground so divulged by the respondent no. 3 to him."

It is further made clear that with regard to the remaining 6 (six) number of

tenders, the respondent-State is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the

procedure.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above

observations and directions. Interim application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

              JUDGE                                  CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)


Saikat