High Court · 2009

2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition. The Project Director, ’Sarva Siksha Abhiyan’ of the State of Meg halaya, issued Short Tender Notice, dated 16.10.2008, inviting tenders for suppl y of standard exercise books for free distribution to children in various elemen tary schools covered by the ’Sarva Siksha Abhiyan’ (hereinafter for short (cid:28)SSA (cid:29)) programme for the State of Meghalaya during the current year 2008-09. It may be mentioned here that Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Meghalaya, is a society registered un der the Societies Registration Act, 1861. Admittedly, the said society is comple tely funded by the Union of India, which came into existence for the implementat ion of policy of the Government of India known as (cid:28)Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (cid:29). It is administered by the officers of the concerned State (Meghalaya in the instant ca se). In response to the said Notice, 15 tenders were received, including thos e of the appellant in Writ Appeal No.210/09 and the writ petitioner (respondent No.5 herein). Eventually, the appellant, in W.A.No.210/09 was chosen by the 4th Respon dent for supply of exercise books. Challenging the said decision, the abovementi oned writ petition came to be filed on the ground that the petitioner’s tender w as illegally rejected. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the judgment under appeal; hence, these two present appeals. The learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition, held that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, the order da ted 20.02.2009, issued by the 4th Respondent, awarding the contract in favour of the appellant, in Writ Appeal No.210/2009, was quashed. The learned Judge furt her directed consideration of the financial bid of the writ petitioner along wit h the financial bids offered by the private Respondent and one Shree Hari Indust ries (the other tenderer), and, then, take a fresh decision as regards awarding of the contract to one of them in accordance with law. Admittedly, the tenders were to be submitted in two parts by the tendere rs. The first part is the Technical Bid and the second part is Financial Bid. Th e Technical Bid is in order to ascertain the area of operation of business of th e tenderers, the requirements of which was stipulated as follows:- (cid:28)(i) ading License issued by Autonomous District Council of Meghalaya for supply of e xercise books; (iv) Financial soundness Certificate from Nationalized Bank and ( v) Sample Exercise Books to be supplied. (cid:29) Bid security of Rs.5.5 lakhs; (ii) Court fee Stamp of Rs. 25/-; (iii) Tr Thereafter, the tenderers’ financial bids are to be considered, the deta ils of such technical pre-requisites may not be necessary for the present order. The writ petitioner’s Financial Bid was not opened on the ground that th e writ petitioner did not have a valid trade license from the concerned District Council of Khasi Hills. The requirement of having such a trade license, on the part of a tenderer, is one of the stipulations made in the notice inviting tende r. On the question of need to have a trade license, the learned Judge recorded a finding that on examination of the tender notice, no such stipulation was found . Apart from the reason given by the learned Judge, Mr.S.S.Dey, learned counsel fo r the appellant in W.A.No213/09 i.e. the SSA, in response to a query from the Co urt, submitted that there can be no realistic explanation for insisting upon suc h trade license in an open tender system where bids are invited from suppliers a cross the country, and, as such, the tenders could not have been restricted only to the suppliers carrying on business in the State of Meghalaya. Therefore, irr espective of the reasons given by the learned Judge on this issue the writ petit ioner/ respondent’s tender could not have been rejected on the ground that he ha d no valid trade license from the concerned District Council. It is the settled law that while inviting tenders in a matter of distribution of public largesse by the State or in awarding contract etc., the State or its instrumentalities sh all normally ensure that such process results in the best quality of service at the most economic rate. In the present case, the inability of the appellant in WA No.213/0 9 to discharge that portion of the abovementioned stipulation in evaluation proc ess of the tender of the writ petitioner, which is admittedly the only reason re corded by the Purchase Board, becomes illegal and must be held that the writ pet itioner’s financial bid was illegally excluded from consideration. The only submission made by Mr.S.S.Dey, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.213/09 is that even if it is to be concluded that the reject ion of the writ petitioner’s tender only on the ground, recorded by the Purchase Board is illegal, then also the appellant in W.A. No.213/09 could not have been directed to straightway open the Financial Bid of the writ petitioner, for whic h the Technical Bid of the writ petitioner is still required to be evaluated wit h reference to other terms mentioned in the tender notice. We accept the submission of Mr. Dey that there is need to evaluate the w rit petitioner’s tender de hors the ground that he did not have a valid trade li cense. Such being the case, the direction of the learned Judge by the judgment u nder appeal to straightway open the financial bid of the writ petitioner, in our view, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside that portion of the direction of the judgment u nder appeal whereunder the appellants in WA No.213/09 have been directed to open the financial bid of the writ petitiner and direct the State Respondents to con sider the technical bid of the writ petitioner in accordance with law, however, excluding the condition as regards the validity of trade license as insisted upo n. In view of the abovementioned conclusion, we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal No.210/09 does not need any separate consideration. The same is dis missed. The Writ Appeal No.213/09 is disposed of as directed.