- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner appellant was a bidder for a contract of doorstep delivery of foodgrains for Baghmara godown. The appellant's case was considered by the competent committee and it was found that the appellant was already holding similar license of P.D.S and therefore, he was not eligible candidate. The appellant's candidature was, therefore, rejected. The remaining person was only respondent no.6 and he was awarded the contract. The petitioner appellant challenged the award of the contract to respondent no.6 by filing writ petition being W.P (C) 7055/2012, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the petitioner appellant that there was criminal case registered against respondent no.6 under section 341, 323, 504, 379 and 34 I.P.C and learned Single Judge was of the view that the said criminal case did not relate to defalcation or misappropriation of Government foodgrains but were in reletion to other offences and in spite of that, respondent no.6 was eligible candidate. However, the petitioner, who was holding a valid license of P.D.S, against which though he had applied for surrender of the license but that surrender was not accepted, was, therefore, disqualified. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.3.2013, this L.P.A has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant submitted that if the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is accepted and it is held that the petitioner was rightly found to be a disqualified candidate for the contract in question, then in that situation respondent no.6 remained the sole tenderer and bidder for the contract. In the procedure of awarding contract, candidature are considered of the tenderers if there are two or more bidders. It is the rule of procedure that whenever there remains only one bidder, then in that situation the only option left with the authority was to retender the contract. In the order in question in which the petitioner's candidature was rejected itself, two bids were not accepted relating to Tundi and Govindpur godowns solely on the ground that because of disqualification of other tenderer, there remained only one tenderer and therefore, retender was essential. In view of the above reason also, awarding the tender to respondent no.6 was absolutely illegal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no.6 vehemently submitted that the petitioner was disqualified because of holding a valid license of P.D.S and the same cannot be disputed. It is also submitted that the work in question was of urgent nature and the respondent no.6, who was an eligible candidate and submitted his competitive bid, was, therefore, rightly given the contract in question.;