Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails the award of a contract under a tender process in favour of the private respondent.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to one of the essential terms and conditions of the tender process. He submits that, the financial capacity requirement prescribed under the tender process has not been fulfilled by the private respondent for the award of the contract. He draws the attention of the Court to the certificate of financial capacity submitted on behalf of the private respondent and submits that, the private respondent admittedly did not have financial output for the first financial year within the three financial years concerned. Therefore, the authorities could not have awarded the contract in favour of the private respondent.
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that, the writ petition was affirmed on February 13, 2019. A meeting was called for on February 14, 2019, which the petitioner attended. The meeting was amongst all the participants and the employers. In such meeting, the employers sought various clarifications. The private respondent submitted its clarification, which was accepted. The documents submitted by the private respondent in such meeting were shown to all the participants including the petitioner. A minute of the meeting was prepared. The representatives of the petitioner signed such minute. He relies upon 2017 SCC Online Cal 5164 (Mechanical Marine Engineers v. Union of India) and submits that, a similar term of the tender condition was interpreted by the Court and the Court held that, the average of three years can be taken for the purpose of qualification. In the present case, the performance of the private respondent was taken on an average of the two financial years. Such average is much higher than the prescribed financial limit. Therefore, the contract was awarded.;