Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) Tendars were called by the Respondent No. 1 for cargo handling contracts. The Petitioner submitted a tender. The question involved in this writ application is whether the Respondent No. 1 was justified in excluding the Petitioner from negotiations held in connection with acceptance of the tenders by the Respondent No. 1.
(2.) The tender notice had been published by the Respondent No. 1 in English, Bengali and Hindi Newspapers. The advertisements provided, inter alia, that tenders would be received upto 2.30 p.m. on May 31, 1996 and would be opened at 3 p.m. on the same date in the presence of the intending tenders. The advertisement also provided that the Respondent No. 1 reserved its right not to accept the lowest and/or any tender and/or cancel tender/tenders and the right to call for negotiations without assigning any reason whatsoever. There was a subsequent corrigendum published which extended the date for receipt of the tenders upto June 10, 1996. Otherwise the terms and conditions previously advertised remained unaltered.
(3.) Apart from the writ Petitioner three other firms submitted their tenders including the Respondent No. 3. The tenders were opened in the presence of all. Admittedly/Mt was found that the rates quoted by the writ Petitioner were the lowest in respect of most of the items. However, the Petitioner was not called for negotiations by the Respondent No. 1. The contract was ultimately awarded to the Respondent No. 3 on August 12, 1996. According to the 'Petitioner the Respondents had no right to exclude the Petitioner from the negotiation and the same was wholly arbitrary. It is stated that the rates negotiated by the Respondent No. 1 with the Respondent No. 3 would result in a loss 6f Rs..1,75,000.00 per day to the Respondent No. 1. According to the writ petitioner by reason of the acceptance of the Respondent No. 3's rates over the period of the contract (three years) the Respondent No. 1' would suffer a loss of Rs. 3,28,52,500.00.;