The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Reliable Facility Services Private Limited & Anr Vs Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute & Ors held that the petitioners cannot be at the receiving end or be made to suffer the effect of a work order which has wrongly been issued to the private respondent in disregard of the tender conditions.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioners request an injunction preventing Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (Institute) from continuing to provide mechanised cleaning services in Chittaranjan National Cancer Research Institute and instructing the defendants to award the tender to petitioner no. 1. The institute issued a tender wherein the petitioner no. 1 and the private respondent participated. The petitioner challenged the selection of the private respondent as a successful bidder in an earlier writ petition which was disposed of by a judgment directing the Institute to revisit the evaluation of the statutory and non-statutory documents required to be submitted by the three bidders in light of the tender conditions and come to a fresh decision within a certain time frame.
In accordance with the directive, the Institute formed a Technical Re-evaluation Committee, which determined that the private respondent was technically eligible to win the offer over the other two bids, including petitioner no. 1. The order issued by the Institute in response to the re-evaluation mandated by this Court is the subject of the current writ petition.
Contentions:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the institute disregard the findings and proceeded only to justify the selection of the private respondent. It was also submitted that the existing contract between the Institute and the Private Respondent should not stand in the way of granting relief to the petitioners.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents contended that the private respondent fulfilled the required eligibility criteria in the tender documents and was also selected because of quoting the lowest bid price as compared to the petitioner and one other bidder.
Courts Observation:
The Hon’ble Court held that the Petitioners cannot be at the receiving end or be made to suffer the effect of a work order which has wrongly been issued to the private respondent in disregard of the tender conditions. In other words, illegality cannot be permitted to continue on the defence of balance of convenience.
“High Courts exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of a mandamus or necessary directions where the High Court comes to a view that a public authority has failed to exercise the discretion conferred upon it by a statute, a rule or a policy decision. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction can intervene in cases where the discretion has been exercised by taking into account irrelevant considerations or by ignoring relevant considerations in a manner that is not consonant with the object for which discretion has been conferred on the authority. The object of issuing a mandamus is to compel the performance of an act by an authority that comes within the fold of Article 226 and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The ultimate rationale of a 226 jurisdiction is to secure justice for those whose rights under Part III of the Constitution have been infringed by an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction. This Court takes inspiration from the words of Justice D.P. Madon in Comptroller and auditor general of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi vs. K.S. Jagannathan; (1986) 2 SCC 679”
The decision of the Court:
The High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute.
Case Title: Reliable Facility Services Private Limited & Anr Vs Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute & Ors
Coram: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya
Case No: W.P.A 25725 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumabha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Sagnik Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Shalmoli Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Ananya Das, Adv
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kallol Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Pal, Adv. Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Adv.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments