Pathak Engineering Corporation And Anr vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender process as they did not participate in it. This was a point of law that the respondents were permitted to urge, and they did so successfully. The Court reasoned that not having participated meant the appellants had no legal right to assail the tender process, citing the principle that a person must be aggrieved or directly affected to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court also addressed the merits, agreeing with the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners' contentions about missing documents were negated, as KMC relied on its existing database for successful bidders in other tenders. Regarding the argument that a fresh tender should have been floated due to fewer than three eligible bidders, the Court noted the importance of the public utility service and, referencing Uflex Limited, held that fewer than three eligible bidders per se should not nullify the tender process, especially when KMC was satisfied with the chosen bidder. No case of relaxation of tender conditions to benefit the L1 bidder was made out. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Facts
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) floated a tender for the supply and delivery of liquid chlorine for the financial year 2023-24, with an estimated value of Rs. 4,22,50,158/-. The eligibility criteria included possessing a valid GSTIN, credentials for similar nature of work, and a valid explosive license. Three parties participated: Universal Mineral Corporation (Universal), Rishikesh Chem (Rishikesh), and SSS Enterprises (SSS). Universal emerged as the L1 bidder. Rishikesh had previously challenged the tender process, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and subsequently by a Division Bench of this Court. After Universal was awarded the work order, the appellants, Pathak Engineering Corporation & Anr., filed writ petitions challenging the same tender process. The learned Single Judge dismissed these writ petitions, leading to the present appeals.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellants have the locus standi to challenge the tender process, not having participated in it, and if so, does this constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? The appellants argued that if KMC intended to relax tender conditions, they could have participated and that not allowing them to challenge the process violates Article 14. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors., and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. The respondents (KMC and others) contended that the appellants lack locus standi as they did not participate in the tender and are likely set up by unsuccessful bidders. They cited cases like Subir Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors. and Mahalakshmi Engineering Works & Ors. v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
M.A.T. 880 of 2023 Pathak Engineering Corporation & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. + M.A.T. 878 of 2023 Pathak Engineering Corporation & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. With I.A. No. CAN/1/2023
Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
& The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
For the Appellants : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.
For the KMC
:
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
For the State in (MAT 878 of 2023)
For the Respondent No. 6 :
: Mr. Jaharlal De, Adv. Mr. Rudranil De, Adv.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Murarka, Adv. Ms. Shreya Ghosh Dastidar, Adv. Mr. Mainak Biswas, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jha, Adv.
2
For the Respondent no. 7 : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Respondent no.8
:
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv. Judgment on : 23.11.2023 Arijit Banerjee, J.:
These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated May 11, 2023, whereby two writ petitions be
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.