- (1.) PURSUANT to our earlier order dated 7th April, 2008, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are personally present in Court. On last occasion, we directed those two respondents to file affidavit explaining the reason why the petitioner was not given the work-order in respect of serial nos. 3, 4 and 8, although, it was the lowest tenderer. Pursuant to such direction, an affidavit has been affirmed before this court. The respondents are also present with other documents in support of their explanation.
(2.) IT is pointed out to us that according to the terms of the tender, for item nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8, the selected tenderer must produce credential in respect of 50 percent of the value of the work which is Rs. 83,93,900/- for each of the aforesaid items. It appears from the declaration given by the petitioner that it had shown a sum of Rs. 76,71,542/- as the payment made during the concerned year which is treated as the credentials of the tenderer.
(3.) MR Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that having regard to the aforesaid sum declared by the petitioner, the work-order in respect of serial no. 1 was given to it as it had sufficient credentials being more than 50 percent of the value of the work. He, however, submits that although it was also the lowest bidder of the item being the serial no. 3, the work-order could not be given to it because after deduction of rs. 42,000/- and odd, being the 50 percent of the value of the work of the serial no. 1 from the credentials of the petitioner, further sufficient credential was not held by the petitioner to cover 50 percent of the value of the work in respect of the serial no. 3. In other words, Mr Chatterjee contends that in order to get all the four work-orders in respect of those items as a lowest bidder, it was the duty of the petitioner to produce the credential of Rs. 1,67,00,000/- being the 50 percent of the total value of the work covering the four items whereas it had the credentials of only Rs. 76,71,542/- and odd, as indicated earlier. Mr Chatterjee, therefore, submits that his clients did not commit any illegality in issuing work-order only in respect of the item being serial no. 1.;