Tripura High Court
Dn Constructions vs The State Of Tripura on 18 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.349 OF 2022
DN Constructions,
Mandoppara, rajbari,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura,
Representated by Shri Dipan Nath,
A partner and the constituted Attorney of
Another Partner, Shri Mantu Debnath,
Aged about 27 years.
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura, Public Works Department, (DWS), New Secretariat
Complex, Agartala, P.O. Agartala Secretariat-799010,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Government of Tripura,
Public Works Department(DWS),
Gurkhabasti, Agartala,
P.O. Kunjaban, 799006,
District-West Tripura.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Government of Tripura,
Public Works Department(DWS),
P.O. Kumarghat,
District- Unakoti, Tripura.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Government of Tripura,
Public Works Department(DWS),
Division-Dharmanagar,
P.O.- Dharmanagar,
District- North Tripura.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. A. Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 18.01.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
The brief fact of this instant writ petition is that
respondent No.4 floated a PNle-T dated 20.01.2022 concerning
12(twelve) numbers of works against 12(twelve) numbers of
DNIe-Ts showing the estimated cost and earnest money
thereof with reference to a particular work. Being eligible in all
respect, the petitioner uploaded the e-Tender with reference to
6(six) numbers of works which were formal in all respect and
were found as such by respondent No.4 after opening the
tenders. The said tenders of the petitioner were also lowest in
rate and when he was having a reasonable expectation that
since the tenders submitted by him were all formal and lowest
in rate, the said tenders would be processed for issuing work
order and execution of the formal agreement by respondent
No.4, the respondent No.4 by issued purported corrigendum
dated 21.03.2022 and cancelled the said PNIe-T containing
12(twelve) numbers of works indicating the DNIe-T with
reference to which the petitioner submitted the tenders. Being
aggrieved by the said actions, the petitioner served a notice of
demand dated 25.03.2022 but with no result.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this instant
petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-
" Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to
show cause as to why all the records pertaining to the PNIe-T
dated 20.01.2022(Annexure-2) shall not be produced before
the Hon'ble Court for its examination and satisfaction;
AND
As to why a writ of Certiorari shall not be
issued cancelling/quashing the Corrigenda dated
21.03.2022(Annexures-15 to 20) by which the PNIe-T dated
20.01.2022(Annexure-2) was cancelled.
AND
As to why a writ of Mandamus shall not be
issued commanding upon the respondents to accept the 6(six)
number of tenders of the petitioner submitted with reference
to DNIe-T No.161/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22, DNIe-T
No.164/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22, DNIe-T
No.165/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22, DNIe-T
No.166/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22, DNIe-T
No.167/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22 and DNIe-T
No.168/SE/DWS/C/KGT/2021-22 and issue work orders
followed by execution of formal agreement with the
petitioner;
AND
As to why a writ of Prohibition shall not be issued
restraining the respondents form issuing any fresh tender
with reference to the works mentioned in the DNIe-T as
named in the prayer No.(d) above till disposal of the Writ
petition;
AND
Any other appropriate order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, under the facts and
circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed."
3. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A.
assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant matter
relates to the cancellation of tender after acceptance. The
tenders were cancelled by issuing corrigendum dated
21.03.2022. Learned Sr. counsel argued that the said
corrigendum dated 21.03.2022 is arbitrary as the same is
passed without disclosing any reasons.
5. After hearing both sides and perusing the
evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned corrigendum dated 21.03.2022 is a non-speaking
proceeding and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
all corrigendum dated 21.03.2022 vide Memo
Nos.F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21169,
F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21172, F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21173,
F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21174, F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21175
and F.27(1)/EE/DWS/DMR/21176 is set aside and the matter
is remanded back. The respondent authority is to consider the
case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the tender schedule,
and pass an appropriate order within a period of 2(two) weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
6. With the above observation and direction, this
instant writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, pending
application(s), if any also stand closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
