- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2015, at the instance of the third party respondent. The dispute is with reference to tenders invited for strengthening 15 KMs. of a byelane road in the District of Birbhum. Admittedly, so far as the initial tender, only one person came forward, hence the same was cancelled. The dispute before us is in respect of second tender which came to be floated in the month of February, 2015. Apparently, both, the appellants and the party respondent submitted their tender application in response to the invitation. The last date for submission of tender was 27.2.2015.
(2.) The respondent authority disqualified both the tenderers on the ground that plant and machinery required for the performance of the tender work were "engaged" elsewhere. The writ petitioner, one of the tenderers, approached this Court in the above writ petition contending that in the case of another Contractor, Millennium Construction, in a similar situation, was given a concession, that is, the consideration was whether the plant and machinery was available as on the date of actual execution of work and not on the date of submission of the tender document. Learned Judge after referring to the case of Millennium Construction was of the opinion that there has to be a purposeful construction of terms of the contract, that is, the tender document. The consideration must be whether the contractor was able to keep the plant and machinery ready at the site at the time of actual execution of the work and not at the time of submission of the tender document. Ultimately, Learned Judge opined that disqualified writ petitioner must be given a chance, consequently decision to disqualify the writ petitioner was set aside. So far as the decision to call fresh tender, (third) was also set aside. Since one Mr. Mohanlal Jain, the appellant herein had suffered similar fate, he was also given a chance. In the result, the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the two offers received, that is, that of the writ petitioner-respondent and the present appellant.
(3.) Aggrieved by the same, Mohanlal Jain the other tenderer who did not approach the Court questioning the order of disqualifying him by the respondent authority is before us. According to the appellant, in response to the third invitation, he has already submitted his tender document by withdrawing deposit of earnest money in respect of the second tender, the subject matter of this appeal. It is pertinent to mention that State has not appealed against the impugned judgment. This appellant was not a party to the writ proceedings.;