S. Banerjee, J.@mdashThe petitioner challenges the rejection of the petitioner''s bid by the respondent authorities and also questions the basis for accepting the bid made by the private respondent No. 4. The work involved is the setting up of drainage infrastructure at the Teesta Barrage.
2. The petitioner admits that one of the non-statutory documents that the petitioner was required to submit along with the on-line bid was not scanned and submitted. According to the petitioner, in view of Clauses 6.1(iv) and 6.3(ii), the respondent authorities or the tender committee ought to have accepted the hard copy of the document supplied by the petitioner immediately after the mistake was discovered. There is a minor disagreement as to whether the mistake was discovered by the petitioner or the mistake was pointed out on behalf of the tender committee and thereafter the petitioner attempted to rectify the same, but nothing turns on such aspect of the matter.
3. The tender terms stipulate that all documents sought should be submitted. Clause 3.2B specifies in unequivocal terms that the failure to submit any of the documents referred to in the clause "will render the tender liable to summary rejection." The professional tax clearance certificate that the petitioner had submitted was not the latest document. The petitioner attempted to forward a copy of the later document under cover of a letter subsequent to the time expiring for the submission of the bid. By such time the bids had been opened. The petitioner contends that it was so minor a mistake that the respondent authorities ought to have accepted the document and allowed the petitioner''s bid to progress to the financial stage.
4. The petitioner availed of the right under clause 6.4 of the tender terms to prefer an appeal from the rejection of the petitioner''s request. According to paragraph 13 of the petition, at the time that the appeal was taken up by the chief engineer, the petitioner''s representatives prosecuting the appeal on behalf of the petitioner perceived the appellate authority''s attitude to be hostile and the petition speaks of the representatives having been threatened that if the appeal was not withdrawn, severe consequences could follow in future tenders. The State is quick to point out that paragraph 13 of the petition has been verified as true to the knowledge of the petitioner when it is apparent from the averments therein that the petitioner was not present at the hearing of the appeal.
5. The moot question that is raised by the petitioner is as to whether the mistake that the petitioner committed in submitting the on-line bid could have been rectified subsequently by furnishing the hard copy of the document. Ordinarily, in exercise of the power of judicial review in matters of the present kind, Courts look at the reasonableness of the action of an authority. If a minor error is committed and it does not impact the substance of a bid, there are well-catalogued instances of the Courts allowing the mistake to be corrected so as to obviate the extreme prejudice of the bid being disqualified due to an insignificant inadvertence. Courts also look at the tender terms contained in the documents to ascertain both the gravity of the mistake and as to whether the tender committee has the authority to allow the rectification of any mistake.
6. In the present case, the note at the foot of clause 3.2B clearly stipulates that all documents would have to be submitted, or else the bid would run the risk of disqualification. In the light of such condition in the tender documents, the tender committee has to be given specific authority in the tender documents to receive any document subsequent to the time permitted for the filing thereof. There does not appear to be any express condition in the tender documents permitting the tender committee to allow a document to be filed at a subsequent stage.
7. The petitioner has relied on clause 6.1(iv) of the tender documents. The second sentence in the term is of relevance and its speaks of any "deficiency" in the statutory documents. According to the petitioner, since the clause relates to any deficiency in the statutory documents submitted not being permitted to be rectified, it must be read to imply that any deficiency in the non-statutory documents could be permitted to be rectified. Ordinarily, a deficiency in a document would not include the abject absence of the document. The second sentence of clause 6.1(iv) of the tender conditions may imply that the deficiency in any non-statutory document may not warrant the cancellation of the bid. Such clause has to be read with clause 6.3(ii) which permits additional information or documents to be sought by the tender committee from a bidder. However, if a document that was required by clause 3.2B of the tender terms to be submitted and such document is not submitted, there is no deficiency in the document; deficiency would arise if the document is submitted and there is some doubt regarding the same. Clauses 6.1(iv) and 6.3(ii) do not admit of a situation where a document that is required to be submitted under clause 3.2B would not be submitted but it would be open to the tender committee to allow the bidder to furnish the document at a subsequent stage.
8. There is no merit in the petitioner''s assertion that the petitioner has been hard done by in the relevant document not being accepted at a subsequent stage. Since there is no merit in the point itself, as to whether the petitioner''s representatives had been threatened in course of the appeal becomes irrelevant. However, the allegations in paragraph 13 are unacceptable in view of the petitioner not having been present in course of the appeal and the reckless manner in which the relevant averments have been verified in the affidavit in support of the petition.
9. The other aspect of the matter pertains to the recent disagreeable trend of invoking Article 14 of the Constitution in its impermissible negative import. The petitioner alleges that the VAT certificate furnished by the successful private respondent No. 4 was in the name of the proprietor of a proprietorship concern not in the name of partnership firm bidder. The relevant document appears at pages 90 to 92 of the petition. To begin with, it cannot be accepted as a proposition of law, that merely because an error has been committed by the tender committee in the evaluation of another bid, any transgression that may have been committed by the complaining bidder has also to be overlooked. In any event, in the present case, what appears from the document at page 91 is that a partner of the partnership firm, that is the respondent No. 4, had obtained the VAT certificate in his name and the proprietorship concern of the same name was subsequently converted into a partnership firm. Further, and as the State has rightly pointed out, the relevant provision pertaining to the document as sought in clause 3.2B of the tender conditions provides that if an appropriate VAT certificate is not furnished, the bidder would have to bear the higher sales tax charges. In a sense, the VAT certificate was dispensable in that for the non-furnishing would result in the bidder being liable for the higher sales tax component.
10. In view of both grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner not holding any water, W.P. No. 36303 (W) of 2013 is dismissed.
11. There will be token costs of Rs. 100/- that the petitioner ought to pay to the State. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
