The writ petition is appearing in the list under the heading ‘Motion’, but as affidavits in the matter are over the petitioner presses the same for hearing.The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of trading, supplying various goods, materials and items including all kinds of tarpaulin and similar kinds of products used for the management and control of disaster and rehabilitation of the affected persons.He is aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary and whimsical action of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (WBSIDCL for short) in purchasing HDDPE tarpaulins for public purpose without inviting a regular tender process.By letter bearing no. 2109-DMCD dated 6th August, 2020 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence, the Managing Director of WBSIDCL was requested to supply two lakh pieces of HDDPE tarpaulins only if the specification matches with the approved specification of the Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence, West Bengal.The petitioner alleges that a similar purchase order was issued by the Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence, on the selfsame day, in favour of MANJUSHA, another Government of West Bengal undertaking. The said MANJUSHA floated a tender for supplying the items as mentioned in the purchase order, whereas, WBSIDCL instead of floating tender and inviting applications directly issued the purchase order in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4.The petitioner submits that as per West Bengal Financial Rules for works above rupees one lakh competitive tenders are required to be called, but in the present case no tender has been called by WBSIDCL even though the value of the work order exceeded Rs. 1 lakh.The petitioner submits that it is too late in the day to treat the prevailing situation as an emergent one for issuing the purchase order in favour of the private respondents as the alleged emergency situation caused by Amphan super cyclone on 20th May, 2020 cannot be stretched till August/September, 2020.The petitioner prays for cancellation of the purchase orders issued in favour of the private respondents on 6th August, 2020 and initiate fresh tender process for the same.The respondent no. 1 WBSIDCL in their affidavit-in-opposition has mentioned that it is a fully owned Government Company carrying on business to implement the different policies of the government including purchase and supply of materials to the different departments of the government. In response to a request letter dated 25th May, 2020 for supply of ten lakh LDPE/LLDPE tarpaulins on emergent basis to the distressed people post Amphan super cyclone, a notice inviting financial bid / quotation was uploaded in the official website of WBSIDCL for wide publicity. The procurement procedure could not be done by observing etender formalities due to time constraint and accordingly the tender process was initiated offline on 26th May, 2020.Several contractors including the petitioner participated in the said tender process. As tarpaulin was required in huge quantity accordingly the manufacturers of tarpaulin were also allowed to participate and submit their bids, to save time, on condition that there would be one composite rate for both high density and low density tarpaulins.On 29th May, 2020 WBSIDCL issued work orders to all the participants in the tender, distributing the supply pro rata according to their production capacity and capability. Pursuant to the work order issued the participants submitted their samples which were duly forwarded to the Director, Disaster Management and Civil Defence for testing.The Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence gave a report mentioning that the samples given by the petitioner are not acceptable as they do not confirm the required specification. The report from the Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence was duly communicated to the parties and the participants whose samples did not meet the required quality were summoned and were given a further opportunity to place their samples as per the required specification. The petitioner even though was given a further opportunity, deliberately did not accept the same. He neither submitted any further sample nor supplied any material as required.On 24th June, 2020 WBSIDCL issued a reminder letter to the petitioner with request to supply the items as mentioned in his work order within 29th June, 2020 failing which it would be presumed that he was not interested in supply and 10% of the total value of the work order would be forfeited from the Earnest Money Deposit. It was clearly mentioned that no further extension of time would be allowed.As no response was received from the petitioner, WBSIDCL cancelled the work order and refunded the balance Earnest Money Deposit after deduction of 10% of the total work order value in terms of the tender conditions. Copy of the order of cancellation of work order dated 1st July, 2020 was duly communicated to the petitioner.The respondent nos. 3 and 4 who also participated in the aforesaid tender process, were requested to upgrade their specification of the materials to the level as suggested by the Disaster Management and Civil Defence Department. Both the private respondents by letters dated 6th August, 2020 undertook to upgrade their samples to the required specifications.As the collective supply of all the suppliers of high density tarpaulin could not meet the required quantity at the specified rate, accordingly, the work orders were issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for supplying a portion of the same at the said rate.It has been categorically mentioned that the work order issued to the private respondents further to the letter dated 6th August, 2020 was a continuing process arising out of the notice inviting financial bid/quotation dated 26th May, 2020.WBSIDCL vehemently denies that there was any illegality in the process of issuing the work order in favour of the private respondents.On the contrary WBSIDCL raises the issue of gross suppression of material facts. It has been mentioned that the petitioner intentionally and deliberately did not disclose that he was a participant of the tender process initiated for supply of the tarpaulins in the month of May, 2020. The petitioner has also suppressed the fact that his candidature stood cancelled as he could not supply the items as per the specification mentioned in the tender document. It has been submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression alone.The private respondents in their affidavit in opposition have mentioned that in response to the tender floated by WBSIDCL they submitted their applications for supply of tarpaulin. On due consideration of their applications, WBSIDCL vide communication dated 29th May, 2020 directed them to supply a specified number of tarpaulin sheets. The work order categorically mentioned that high density material was allowed in place of the low density one and the rate of each piece of tarpaulin was Rs. 580/- only. The work order further mentioned that WBSIDCL may draw samples at any time for random sample test and failing out on any of the specifications therein the entire lot was liable to be cancelled.The private respondents submit that WBSIDCL sought for the samples for checking by the department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence. After the samples were checked minor discrepancies came to light. The private respondents undertook to resolve the said discrepancies. Relying upon the assurance given by the private respondents to rectify the discrepancies, WBSIDCL directed the private respondents to supply the required number of high density tarpaulin sheets.The private respondents further submit that the petitioner being unsuccessful in supplying the requisite item as per the specification laid down by WBSIDCL has filed the instant writ petition with the mala fide intention to stall the public work in order to gain monopoly in supplying the tarpaulin sheets.The private respondents also raise the issue of gross suppression of material facts by the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of all the parties. On perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties, it appears that to salvage the havoc wreaked by super cyclone Amphan the department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence sought for immediate supply of huge quantity of tarpaulin sheets. WBSIDCL, being a Government Company dealing with such matters, was handed over the responsibility to make necessary arrangements for supplying the same.WBSIDCL in accordance with the Financial Rules published a notice inviting financial bid/quotation on 26th May 2020 inviting applications for supply of the required quantity of tarpaulin in accordance with the specifications mentioned therein. Both the petitioner and the private respondents applied pursuant to the said notice inviting financial bid/quotation. Samples of tarpaulin were called for from the bidders for testing by the department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence. WBSIDCL by a communicating letter dated 2nd June 2020 forwarded the samples provided by all the bidders to the Director, Directorate of Disaster Management and Civil Defence for testing. The testing report dated 8th June, 2020 clearly recorded that the sample of the petitioner was not acceptable. The testing report was duly communicated to the petitioner.The Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence however intimated WBSIDCL that if the suppliers can rectify the deficiencies mentioned then supply of tarpaulin may be made by them. The petitioner was intimated and requested to rectify the deficiencies which the petitioner agreed to. Accordingly a work order was issued to the petitioner on 29th May, 2020 for supply of 4,500 pieces of tarpaulin as per the tender specification within 13th June, 2020.The petitioner was intimated by a communication dated 24th June, 2020 that his supply capacity of 300 pieces of tarpaulin per day was abysmally low compared to the volume required during the crisis period. It was mentioned that timely delivery of tarpaulin was of paramount importance to cater to the crisis. The petitioner was asked to deliver the required tarpaulins mentioned in the work order within 5 pm on 29th June, 2020. The aforesaid letter categorically mentioned that in default to deliver the required quantity within the specified time, it will be presumed that he was no longer interested in the supply and the work order will be cancelled without any further communication. As the petitioner failed to supply the required quantity of tarpaulin, the work order stood cancelled by a communication dated 1st July, 2020. Ten percent of the total work order value was forfeited from the earnest money deposited by him.On failure to supply the required quantity of tarpaulin, WBSIDCL had to take up the task to meet the requirement of supplying the tarpaulins left unsupplied by the petitioner. WBSIDCL accordingly relied upon the undertaking given by the private respondents for rectification of the minor discrepancies in their samples so as to conform to the specification laid down in the notice inviting financial bid/ quotation.To make up for the non-supply of tarpaulin by the petitioner, WBSIDCL issued the work order in favour of the private respondents for supplying a fixed quantity of high density tarpaulin as per the required specification within a specified time limit.The impugned work order though does not specifically make mention that the same was issued in continuation of the notice inviting financial bid/quotation dated 26th May, 2020 but from the chronological sequence of events it appears that fresh work order was issued in favour of the private respondent to meet the immediate high demand of tarpaulin in the post Amphan period.The Ld. senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has deftly tried to convince the Court that the work orders issued in favour of the private respondents on 6th August, 2020 cannot be said to be an action taken in response to a crisis which arose on 20th May, 2020, as due to efflux of time the immediate intervention required in May 2020 ceased to hold good in August/September 2020. The strenuous arguments made on behalf of the petitioner to read the work order of 6th August, 2020 as a fresh one, no way connected with the earlier notice inviting quotation/bid of May 2020 does not appeal to the Court. The work order of August/September 2020 ought not to be read in isolation. A collective assessment of all the events which led to the issuance of the work order at such a delayed date give a different picture altogether.Had the petitioner, being the bidder quoting the lowest bid, been successful in supplying the required quantity of tarpaulin, in accordance with the laid down specifications, then possibly the requirement of issuing a further work order could have been averted.In fact it appears that there was a huge delay on the part of WBSIDCL to supply the required quantity of tarpaulin due to the irresponsible act of the petitioner in not supplying the items as per the work order issued in his favour, thereby causing further loss, pain and agony to the affected persons.The allegation of the petitioner that the private respondents were cherry picked and work orders were issued to them is not borne out from the records. The series of communications made by and between the parties clearly show that just like the petitioner the private respondents also participated in the bidding process and on their assurance to deliver the required quantity of tarpaulin as per the specification laid down by the authority, the work order was issued. There was a level playing ground and the petitioner had equal opportunity to do business. Having failed to avail the opportunity the petitioner cannot now complain of cherry picking.The example of MANJUSHA floating tender, put forth by the petitioner, hardly have any nexus with the facts of the case at hand. The Court has not been apprised of the circumstances under which MANJUSHA acted. Order issued by the Department of Disaster Management and Civil Defence upon WBSIDCL to supply the items is absolutely separate and independen
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t of any order placed upon MANJUSHA to supply similar items.The conduct of the petitioner in not mentioning the fact that he participated in the bidding process and was selected as the lowest tenderer but thereafter his candidature stood cancelled as he failed to meet the specification laid down by the department does not appear to be a clean one. The petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact of his participation in the bid, issuance of work order in his favour and cancellation of his work order due to non-supply of items at the time of filing of the writ petition. Non-disclosure of vital, relevant information at the time of filing a writ petition amounts to suppression of facts which cannot be supported in law. One who approaches the court of law must come with clean hands.Thus from the above it is crystal clear that there is hardly any fault, illegality in the action taken by WBSIDCL. Had WBSIDCL called for another bid for meeting up the items not supplied by the petitioner then the entire effort to supply tarpaulin on emergent basis, to the seriously affected persons due to the super cyclone would have been frustrated. The petitioner ought not to be permitted to act as a spanner in the wheel and further delay the distribution of the emergent items.The writ petition does not warrant interference by the Court in its high prerogative writ jurisdiction and the same is accordingly dismissed.WP 7462 of 2020 along with CAN 1 of 2020 is dismissed.Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual legal formalities.