- (1.) The petitioner assails the decision of the respondent no. 1 in declaring the bid of the first petitioner to a tender as nonresponsive.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the first petitioner had participated in a tender floated by the Chief Executive Officer of West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board for infrastructural development by renovation of agricultural farms and research station in South 24-Parganas. The first respondent had undertaken 21 tenders and that the petitioner had participated in respect of 8 tenders. He submits that, the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for participation in the tender. He refers to the various terms and conditions of the tender and submits that, the first petitioner was not required to furnish documentary evidence of the engineering qualification of the personnel in the employment of the first petitioner as an essential eligibility criteria in the tender. He refers to the check list and the various terms and conditions of the tender in respect of such contention. He refers to a letter dated November 25, 2016 issued by the respondent no. 1 and submits that, the respondent no. 1 had found the first petitioner as non-responsive for non-availability of testimonials and documents regarding engagement of the Civil Engineer. He submits that, the petitioner had responded thereto by a writing dated November 29, 2016 He also refers to the writing dated December 12, 2016 where the first petitioner had claimed that on the hearing held on December 2, 2016 the petitioners had showed the documents and testimonials regarding engagement of the Civil Engineers along with the certificate of the engineers who are employed in support of the claim made by the petitioners. He submits that, one of the private respondents, initially found to be nonresponsive was made responsive in order to bring the tender of the other tenderers within the ambit of consideration. He further submits that, the financial bid of the petitioners is significantly lower than that of the other tenderers. The first petitioner was unfairly treated that the terms and conditions of the tender was not adhered to in considering the tender of the first petitioner.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the rules and orders framed by the Government relating to contracts and submits that, the lowest tenderer should not be rejected on the ground of petty irregularities and omission. He submits that, the tender of the first petitioner complies with the terms and conditions of the tenders substantially. When there is substantial compliance, such tender ought not to be rejected. He relies upon 1991 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 273 (Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors.) and 2011 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 236 (Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors.) in support of such contention.;