Armex Security Private Limited vs State Of West Bengal And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.

The grievance of the present writ petitioner is that although the present petitioner participated in a bid and the amount quoted by the petitioner was equivalent to one Acme and one Alert Services, the private respondent nos.7 and 8, the bids of Acme and Alert Services were accepted jointly while the petitioner's bid was rejected, primarily on the ground that the petitioner had quoted higher.

It is demonstratively shown by learned counsel for the petitioner from the annexure at page-26 of the writ petition, which is comprised of the amounts quoted by the petitioner, compared with page-28, which is the amount quoted by respondent nos.7 and 8, that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 resorted to tricky means to by-pass due process and be accepted as the highest bidders.

It is seen from the quotation amounts of respondent nos.7 and 8 at page-28 that, whereas the figures quoted were in rupees and paise, under certain heads, including PF, ESI and Bonus, the respondent nos.7 and 8 showed figures which extended up to more than the second place after the decimal point.

It is impossible for any payment being made in cash, in rupees and paise, beyond the second digit after the decimal point and as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent-authorities to read down the amounts quoted by all the participants at least to the second digit after the decimal point, to make it feasible for payment under the denomination system in currency in India.

As such, learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, in reply, indicates that the figures given by respondent nos. 7 and 8, which extended upto three, or even five digits after the decimal point under different heads, were added up to get the total bid amounts.

An example will clarify the issue further. The amount quoted by respondent nos.7 and 8 for the post of Security Guard under the head PF was Rs.40.885/- which, taken to the second place after the decimal point, would come to the figure 40.89, which was the exact amount quoted under the same head by the present petitioner. Under the head ESI, the respondent nos.7 and 8 quoted the figure, Rs.10.22125, which, if taken to the second decimal place, comes to Rs.10.22, which also tallies exactly with the petitioner's quotation under the same head. Under the head Bonus, respondent nos.7 and 8 quoted Rs.26.19785.

Simple mathematics will show that the said figure, taken to the second digit after the decimal point, comes to Rs.26.20, which was also the exact figure quoted by the present petitioner.

As such, since it is physically impossible to calculate payments in the denomination of Rupees and Paise after the second digit post-decimal point, as payments in paise cannot exceed double figures, the respondent-authorities acted palpably without jurisdiction and in gross abuse of the public duty being performed by them in accepting the bids of respondent nos.7 and 8 jointly, by giving undue preference to them, for reasons best known to the respondent no.2, over the present petitioner, all three of whom had quoted the same amounts, at least as apparent from the annexures to the writ petition.

In such view of the matter, it is evident that in the present case, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India has been violated along with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as equal bidders were not taken on an equal footing by the respondent no.2 and the right of the petitioner to profess his business was directly affected by the perverse action of the respondent no.2.

Hence, although generally tender matters are not interfered with by court, in the present case, the error was palpable and could not be justified under any circumstances. Such error encourages sharp practice on the part of prospective bidders and deprives legitimate bidders from success in the tender process, thereby rendering the entire process a farce and vitiating it.

However, in view of the palpably extra-jurisdictional action taken by the respondent no.2 in accepting the bid of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 in preference to the petitioner, the decision of the respondent no.2 in accepting the bid of respondent nos. 7 and 8 in respect of the tender-in-question, is set aside.

The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the bids of the respective bidders who were finally short-listed by the respondent no.2, upon taking the amounts quoted by the said bidders under each head up to the second digit after the decimal point and thereafter the respondent no.2 shall come to a reasoned conclusion as to acceptance of any of such bids on transparent grounds.

Such process shall be completed by the respondent no.2 within a month from date. W.P. 22332(W) of 2019 is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.