ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11 June, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was directed against an order dated 7 June, 2018 whereby the petitioner company's bid in connection with a tender was rejected by the respondent Corporation.
(2.) On 8 May, 2018 the respondent Corporation issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) calling for bids for supply of 3.5 crore exercise books for being distributed amongst various Government and Government Aided Educational Institutions in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner company put in its bid. 11 May, 2018 was the date specified for uploading all bids. By way of a corrigendum dated 9 May, 2018 paras 1.2, 1.10 (i) and 2.4.1(a) of the general conditions of supply were amended. By a letter dated 5 June, 2018 the Purchase Committee of the respondent corporation called upon the petitioner company to submit relevant documents in support of proof of operation in West Bengal since 2015-16 as mentioned in para 1.2 as amended by the said corrigendum. The petitioner replied to the said letter by a letter dated 6 June 2018. By the impugned communication dated 7 June, 2018 the petitioner was informed that its bid had been rejected during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason 'Not Fulfil the Tender Criteria'. In the said communication it was also stated that in case of any clarification or feedback the petitioner may contact the Tender Inviting Authority.
(3.) The petitioner company filed a writ petition on 8 June, 2018 challenging the said communication. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11 June, 2018 the learned Judge dismissed the writ application. The operative portion of the impugned judgment and order reads as follows:- "All the paragraphs in Parts 1 and 2 of the bidding documents read in conjunction with the corrigendum dated 9 May, 2018 reveals that submission of documents towards statutory registration in West Bengal was a mandatory requirement for all the participants in the tender process. Indisputably, the petitioner no. 1 does fulfil the criterion towards statutory registrations in West Bengal. The conditions, as incorporated in the NIT, need to be considered together and in isolation. A particular clause cannot be taken up and highlighted. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Sen that the reason behind incorporation of the criterion towards statutory registration in West Bengal was to ensure that the selected bidder has the potential to successfully carry out the word. Such reasoning is a plausible one. No mala fide can be attributed to such action of the authorities and it cannot be said that the authorities have acted in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the authorities. The writ court cannot transpose itself as an appellate authority and in cases where two views emerge, it cannot interfere even if it feels that one is more logical. The petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the tender process. The scope of judicial review in award of contracts is very limited. In support of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the court is primarily required to ascertain as to whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. The invitation to tender is in the realm of contract and cannot be open to judicial scrutiny. There is also no error in such decision making process warranting interference of this Court in exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed above, this court is unable to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.";