Kaushik Paul vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Kaushik Paul, challenged a reasoned order dated November 26, 2020, issued by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, which cancelled a tender process. The cancellation was based on the finding that the petitioner lacked the required credentials. The petitioner argued that he met the criteria stipulated in Rule 226(1) of the PWD Code, as amended by a notification dated March 18, 2015. This rule requires proof of completed work of a similar nature, valued at a minimum of 40% of the estimated tender amount, within five years prior to the tender notice. The petitioner presented a certificate dated February 14, 2020, indicating his final bill amount was Rs. 27,03,962/-, including GST and LW cess. The tender notice dated January 8, 2020, had an estimated tender amount of Rs. 60,39,723/-.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite credential as per Rule 226(1) of the PWD Code. The Court performed an arithmetic calculation, determining that 40% of the estimated tender amount of Rs. 60,39,723/- was Rs. 24,15,889/-. The Court also calculated the petitioner's final bill amount, excluding GST (12%) and LW cess (1%), to be approximately Rs. 23,52,448/-. This amount was found to be less than the required 40% of the tender amount. The Court reasoned that the credential value must be based on the amount of completed work excluding taxes and cess, as the 40% requirement of the tender amount also does not include such levies. The Court rejected the petitioner's submission that the credential should be reckoned from the estimated amount including GST and LW cess, as the rule requires the value of 'similar nature of completed work'. Therefore, the employer's decision to cancel the tender due to the petitioner's lack of credential was deemed justified, and there was no case for interference. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite credential as per Rule 226(1) of the PWD Code, as amended, to qualify for the tender, and if so, whether the cancellation of the tender process on the grounds of lacking such credential was justified. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he met the credential requirement. He argued that his credential should be reckoned from the estimated amount put to tender, which, according to the certificate, was Rs. 38,79,834/- (including GST and LW cess). He asserted that the cancellation of the tender based on his alleged lack of credential was arbitrary and should be set aside. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation or the other respondents. However, the Court's analysis indicates that the revenue's position, as understood by the Court, was that the petitioner's credential amount, when calculated excluding GST and LW cess, was less than 40% of the estimated tender amount.