DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners seek quashing of the tender process initiated by a tender notice at page 72 of the writ petition.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners having participated in the tender process, the authorities are not entitled to make a second call in respect of such tender process when the petitioner had qualified in the technical bid process. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the petitioner had participated in a tender process in terms of a notice inviting tender at page 48 of the writ petition. In such tender process, the petitioner was found to be qualified as will appear from page 71 of the writ petition. He draws the attention of the Court to the circulars issued by the Finance Department of the State at pages 9 to 11 of the affidavit-in-reply. He submits that, the Finance Department is of the view that, when there is a re-tender issued by the authorities, no second call is required even if there is less number of participant than the number prescribed by the Finance Department. The tender may be evaluated on merits. He submits that, the Government by the impugned action at page 72 of the writ petition is seeking to override the directions issued by the Finance Department, without any basis for the same. He contends that, in the affidavit-in-opposition, assuming that the State Government is entitled to put any further grounds than that is appearing in the impugned writing at page 72 of the writ petition, does not explain its conduct. Therefore, the bid of the writ petitioners should be directed to be evaluated, in accordance with law.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the impugned tender process cannot be said to be a second call. It is a fresh tender process. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that prior to page 48 of the writ petition through which the tender process was initiated, the State had initiated a prior tender process which is at page 75 of the writ petition. There being no participant in such tender process, the same was cancelled. Page 48 of the writ petition, therefore, is the tender process. It should be construed to be a fresh initiation of the tender process. Clause 6.7 of the tender conditions permits the State authorities to make a second call. Therefore, the State authorities have done so. There is no infirmity in the action of the State.;