Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the disqualification of his technical bid in a tender for supply of cooked food floated by the respondent authorities in respect of Raghunathpur Sub- Divisional Hospital. The grounds for disqualification were communicated on the earlier date by the learned advocate for the respondents by submission of a report which reads as follows: 1) "Prefessional Tax Registration/any Challan deposited in last six months from scheduled date of e-tender opening has not been submitted by the petitioner [Clause 12.2A(ii) of bid document]. 2) Performance Statement as contained in Clause 12.2C is submitted without notarized certification authenticating the correctness of the information furnished as per Clause 3 of Section VI (General Condition of Contract). 3) Audited Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss A/c for the period 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 has not been submitted by the petitioner whereas the bidders are to submit Audited Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss A/c of last three years as per Clause 12.2D(i) of bid document. It may be mentioned herein that in terms of Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the permissibility of filing of a return after the close of a financial year cannot be lost sight of the purpose of obtaining the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts which is to assess the financial strength of the relevant bidder and the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account as referred to in the tender conditions had nothing to do with the income tax return required to be filed by the bidder as an Assessee. It is contemplated in clause 18.3 of Section VII of the tender terms that if any document required to be submitted for e-tender by the bidder in his technical proposal is not submitted or is found to be deficient in any manner at any stage after opening of bid, the bid may be summarily rejected. The Tender Selection Committee for the aforesaid reasons has rejected the technical bid of Bansidhar Majhi, the Petitioner as per clause 18.3 of Section VII of the tender terms."
(2.) Mr. Swarup Pal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that his client had filed Challans evidencing deposit of professional tax for more than a year and his performance statement in terms of Clause 3 of the NIT was duly certified by the Superintendent of the concerned hospital. Requirement of notarisation of such certificate was optional. Audited balance sheet though not supplied by his client, other bidders namely, M/s. Rupa, M/s. The New Supply and M/s. The Jana were found qualified to participate in the finance bid notwithstanding such deficiency. Hence, such deficiency cannot be a ground to disqualify his client who stands on the same footing as the other qualified bidders.
(3.) Mr. Pontu Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands and had repeatedly sought to thwart the tendering process by approaching this Court earlier. Various orders have been passed by this Court permitting the tender process to continue and the present petition is another attempt to scuttle such effort.;