9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents in finalizing the selection of respondent No.4, especially when the petitioner had not submitted any bid before the cut-off date. Since the petitioner has not participated, therefore, his argument that the respondents could have fatched better price has no merit. The petitioner got advantage of already extended one year in two phases of six months for one or another reason. The judgment in the case of STATE OF ASSAM ORS. VERSUS SUSRITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. [ 2014 (4) TMI 1138 - SUPREME COURT ] the Apex Court held that the sale may be either by public auction or private contract. In either case the trustee has to keep in mind that he must obtain the most advantageous price. In the facts of the said case the tender process was set aside and directions were issued for fresh tender but in the facts of the present case nothing has been brought by the petitioner to show in what manner the respondents have acted arbitrarily in finalizing the tender of the respondent No.4. In the present case the petitioner has failed to point out any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in selection of respondent No.4. The petitioner has to blame himself for not participating in the ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.2.2020, whereby the period was extended for another six months upto 30th September, 2020. The State Government has again extended the term of contract vide order dated 1.10.2020 for another six months i.e. from 1.10.2020 to 31 st March, 2021. Now the extended period of contract is expiring on 31st March, 2021. The State has issued First NIT on 18th March, 2020 for State Level Centralized Call Center/ Dial-100 Project Phase II (2020-2025) On Turn-Key Basis for fresh grant of contract. According to the petitioner various objections were raised in respect of certain conditions and therefore no one participated in the process for awarding of NIT. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Second Call on 28.10.2020 with modified conditions but still no one participated in the Second Call also. Thereafter, the State issued revised 3rd Call e-Tender (NIT) document on 9.12.2020 for State Level Centralized Call Center/ Dial-100 Project Phase-II (2020-2025) On Turn Key Basis , by relaxing certain conditions of the first and second call. On-line bid submission date commenced from 9.12.2020 upto 18 hrs. and the last date of submission of on-line bid was 24.12.2020, upto 1800 PM. The date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the 3rd Revised Call was forcefully restrained by GST Team from participating in the Tender process. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts of the present case and taking into consideration the vast difference of the rates on which the petitioner was earlier working and the rates which has been submitted by the respondent No.4, the proceedings of the tender in pursuance to the impugned revised 3rd Call in relation to State Level Centralized Call Center/ Dial-100 Project Phase-II (2020-2025) On Turn Key Basis deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to initiate fresh tender process. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments : (2010)6 SCC 303 Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Ors.; (2014)11 SCC 192 :: AIR 2014 SC 2307 State of Assam Ors. Vs. Susrita Holding Pvt. Ltd.; (2015)13 SCC 233:: AIR 2014 SC 3358 Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust Ors.; (1994)6 SCC 651 Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India and (2000)5 SCC 287 Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sufficient time for making preparation for submission of the bid from 9.12.2020 till the last date i.e. 24.12.2020 but he opted to wait till 22 nd December, 2020 to prepare the bank guarantee of ₹ 2.50 Crore to participate in the bid. On the last date a raid was conducted by the Commercial Tax, M.P. If the petitioner would have been interested to participate, he could have prepared the bank guarantee well in advance and could have submitted the bid much before the last date i.e. 26.12.2020. The two other tenderers submitted their bid on the last date, would not mean that it was compulsorily necessary for all the bidders to submit their bid on the last date of submission of bid. Even otherwise, for the same the respondents cannot be blamed that because of their action the petitioner was precluded from participating in the 3rd revised call. 11. The respondents have duly considered the two eligible tenderers who had submitted their bid well in time before last date of submission of the bid. There is no element of pick and choose as due process of tender was followed by the respondents. 12. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
