1 5
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.36/2024
Sri Shibaji Kar Bhowmik
Petitioner(s).
………
V E R S U S
The Union of India & others
Respondent(s).
………
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Pranabindu Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy S.G.I.,
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
ARINDAM LODH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Order
28/02/2024
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
Pranabindu Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr.
Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy S.G.I. appearing for the respondent-Union of
India and Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
Soumyadeep Saha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents-University.
2. Petitioner approached this Court for rescinding the note at
Annexure-5 as it appeared therefrom that though the petitioner was the lowest
bidder in the bidding process for supply and installation of Cordless Collar
Microphone, Wireless Handheld Microphone, Transmitter or Receiver, Speaker
50 Watts, Mi but the respondent No.5 who was shown to be the third lowest
tenderer has been granted the work order for procurement of those articles.
Though the work order was not annexed to the writ petition, but this Court
directed the learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 to seek
2 5
Page of
instructions and file a counter affidavit with supporting documents. The
affidavit of the respondents No.3 and 4 in categorical terms states that the
supply/contract order has been issued on 01.01.2024 in favour of the private
respondent as the GeM portal automatically popped up the bid of private
respondent with an MSE preference. Even if a non-MSE bidder is selected as
L1 and MSE price quoted is L1 + X% (X as defined in bid range), the order has
to be placed in favour of the bidder having MSE preference at the same rate as
L1. Copy of the screen shot and bid document are enclosed as Annexure-B and
C, copy of the reference MSE preference screen shot from GeM is annexed as
Annexure-D and copy of the reference screen shot regarding MSE not applied
by the petitioner is at Annexure-E.
3. Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pranabindu
Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has countenanced the stand of
the respondents No.3 and 4 by referring to the MSE certificate at Anneuxure-3
and 4 which refers to one Udyam Registration Number and the name of the
petitioner. Petitioner's manufacturer is Ahuja whose products were being
quoted in the bid by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
further referred to Clause-5 of the bid document which, according to him,
restricts purchase preference to MSEs who are traders. They are excluded from
the purview of Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises in
respect of bid for services. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner as well as the private respondent both are traders and not
manufacturers. Therefore, no case of MSE purchase preference could be made
out in favour of the private respondent. It is also submitted that all relevant
documents relating to MSE registration were duly submitted with the bid
3 5
Page of
document by the petitioner which have not been duly uploaded by the
respondent-employer. Learned counsel has also referred to the provisions of
Section 2(e) and (g) and Section 11 of the Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act, 2006, for short) in order to
submit that the MSE procurement preference policy provides that such
preference is to be given for enterprises which not only produce but provide the
necessary goods and services sought to be procured. Mere supply or trading of
MSE product would not entitle anyone to claim purchase preference as an
MSE. It is submitted that petitioner has hugely suffered on account of grant of
procurement order in favour of respondent No.5 though he had quoted the
highest rate. Therefore, the impugned note reflected in the GeM Portal which
qualified respondent No.5 as the successful bidder and in whose favour
procurement order has been placed should be set aside.
4. Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Soumyadeep Saha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4,
on the other hand, submits that the evaluation of documents on the GeM Portal
is not within the control of the employer. The name of respondent No.5 was
popped up as the relevant documents in support of its MSE purchase preference
were in his favour. Even though the bid of respondent No.5 was the highest but
the procurement order had been placed at the same rate as the L1, i.e. the
petitioner. As such, neither is the exercise flawed on account of arbitrariness
nor has it resulted in loss to the public exchequer. He submitted that since the
procurement has already been made, the issue has become academic. The
respondent No.3 cannot be answerable for the bidding process undertaken by
the GeM Portal. Petitioner has not been able to establish any non-compliance of
4 5
Page of
the provisions of the NIT at the behest of the respondents No.3 and 4 for
getting the relief.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant documents placed on record. We have
also gone through the relevant provisions of the MSME Act, 2006. Petitioner
though has relied upon the conditions of Clause-5 of advertisement which
restricts claim of MSE to a service provider but he has approached this Court
on the strength of being an MSE service provider and not a manufacturer. On
similar lines, he has relied upon the provisions of Section 11 of the MSME Act,
2006. Since the procurement has been done through bidding at the GeM Portal
and uploading of documents is done by every interested bidder, the employer
i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 cannot be blamed for non-uploading of relevant
certificates referred to as MSE registration in favour of the petitioner.
Moreover, GeM Portal is not a party before this Court. Whether the documents
supplied by the petitioner were uploaded or he failed to upload those documents
and whether the respondent No.5 had uploaded those documents which are
reflected in the screen shot of GeM Portal qualifying him to be a successful
bidder cannot be examined in the absence of the concerned party. It has been
further pointed out that even though respondent No.5 has quoted the highest
rate but on purchase preference policy as an MSE as shown by the GeM Portal
the supply order has been placed at the same lowest rate as quoted by the
petitioner. Moreover, the supplies have already been made by 31.01.2024. In
such circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5 5
Page of
6. For all the above reasons, no case for interference is made out on
the part of the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
Date: 2024.02.29
PULAK BANIK
16:33:48 +05'30'