Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the second petitioner is one of its Directors. They have approached this Court with this writ petition for twofold reliefs. The petitioner No.1 had participated in a tender in respect of work for "Provision and concrete turning pad, runway end safety area and concrete surfaces at INS Utkrosh, Port Blair". This is a defence project and the Military Engineer Service was conducting the tender process. The petitioners want the bid of the respondent no.4, who figures on top of the list of the eligible candidates after opening of financial bid to be invalidated on the ground that they were ineligible to participate in the tender process. The second relief the petitioners seek is for cancellation of the decision of the tendering body un-enlisting the petitioners.
(2.) The tender notice was published on 27th January, 2017. The end date of bid submission was stipulated to be 6th March, 2017 on the basis of a corrigendum issued by the tendering authority and the date of opening the bid was also extended to 13th march, 2017, beyond what was specified in the original schedule. After opening of the technical bid, the names of bidding firms were disclosed, who were to undergo technical evaluation. Both the first petitioner and the fourth respondent had passed the muster at the stage of technical evaluation. The petitioner No.1 has come second in the financial bid, which was opened on 7th April, 2017. The first on the list, who is commonly referred to as "L-I" is Dineshchandra R. Agarwal Infracom Private Limited, being the fourth respondent in the writ petition. They however go unrepresented before me. An affidavit of service affirmed by one Ms.Shipra Mondal on 17th April, 2017 reveals that service was effected upon the said respondent. In such circumstances, I proceeded with hearing of the writ petition.
(3.) The writ petition was originally instituted on 10th April, 2017 and the petition as was originally framed contained no prayer in relation to the unenlistment of the first petitioner. The reason for this, as is submitted by Mrs.Nag, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that her clients never received the communication by which such un-enlistment is said to have taken place. It is the petitioners' case that they came to know for the first time of such a step from a letter dated 13th April, 2017 in which the factum of such un-enlistment was recorded. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended to incorporate therein the petitioners' grievance on this count and prayer for quashing the decision of un-enlistment was introduced. Copy of the letter dated 13th April, 2017 has been annexed at page 61 of the amended writ petition. It has been submitted by Mrs.Nag that enclosed to that letter of 13th April, 2017 was a copy of a letter dated 31st May, 2016, which in turn has been annexed as part of "P-13" of the amended writ petition at page 60 thereof. This letter of 31st May, 2016 carries the decision for un-enlistment of the first petitioner. I shall refer to the amended writ petition as the writ petition later in this judgement.;