Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent appeal arises out of an order dated 23rd September, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.915 of 2011. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
(2.) The facts of the instant case -in a nutshell - are as follows: The appellant (being the writ petitioner), along with four others, pursuant to a tender notice published in newspaper, submitted sealed tenders for award of contract for clearance of container goods of the Canteen Stores Department for the period 1st January, 2011 to 31st December, 2011. The tenders were opened and it was found that one M/s Bhawani Traders was the lowest bidder followed by M/s Veeshram Associates, M/s Devendran Enterprises, M/s M.K.Agency and M/s Shree Raja Rejeshwari Enterprises, in that order. The last named firm filed the writ petition. The lowest bidder, i.e. M/s Bhawani Traders, was issued a letter to submit willingness for executing the contract. In reply, the firm informed the authorities that it was a matter of clerical mistake and expressed unwillingness to execute the contract. Thereafter, all the four remaining tenderers including the writ petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No.5, were advised to submit their willingness or otherwise. The second lower tenderer expressed unwillingness to accept the contract. The third lowest tenderer, i.e. M/s Devendran Enterprises, being L -3, submitted willingness to carry out the work at the rate quoted by them. The contract was accordingly awarded to M/s Devendran Enterprises on 23rd February, 2011, by the Canteen Stores Department, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. After almost four months, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge referring to a Central Vigilance Commission's circular, bearing No.005/CRD/12 dated 3rd March, 2007, primarily contending that the authorities had awarded the contract to the third lowest tenderer, namely, M/s Devendran Enterprises, in violation of the said circular. According to the writ petitioner, the respondent authorities should have gone for re -tender in terms of the said circular dated 3rd March, 2007, instead of awarding the contract in favour of the L -3 bidder. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner prayed for quashing of the contract awarded on 23rd February, 2011, to M/s Devendran Enterprises. The matter was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge and after considering the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the parties and upon perusing the materials available on record the Court held, inter alia, that there was no denial that the contract, rightly or wrongly, had already been allotted to the third lowest bidder in terms of the agreement dated 23rd February, 2011, and the contractor had already started work in terms of the contract. The Court also observed that the writ petition was filed in June, 2011, i.e. almost four months after commencement of work. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that a prayer for interim order in favour of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Court by an earlier dated 9th June, 2011, against which the writ petitioner had not moved any higher forum. Under such facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the writ petitioner had practically no case made out and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition on contest.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner essentially reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that the circular of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 3rd March, 2007, made it clear that in case of the L -1 bidder backing out, there should have been a re -tender. The respondent authorities had, nevertheless, decided to award the contract in favour of the L -3, i.e., M/s Devendran Enterprises, which was palpably illegal. As such, he submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering this aspect of the matter while dismissing the writ petition.;