WPA/21504/2021 of PANTHER SECURITY SERVICE AND ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 30 December 2021

30.12.2021.Item No. 08Ct. No. 17 PG

W.P.A. 21504 of 2021rPanther Security Service & Anr.Vs.Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri………..for the petitionersMs. Sumitra Das……….for the Union of India Mr. Sudipto Panda….for the respondent nos. 2 to 8

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners bekept on record.

It appears that the copies of the writapplication have been served upon the respondents.Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioners submitsthat the petitioners, in response to the E-TenderNotice submitted the tender. The petitionerssubmitted all the documents as per the guidelines ofthe tender issued by the BSNL authorities. Learnedlawyer submits that the respondent authoritiesrejected the tender of the petitioners on technicalground that tender was not submitted with theattestation of the signature of the authorisedsignatory by the concerned bank. Under suchcircumstances, learned lawyer urges that the reportof the tender opening committee meeting dated 27[th]

October, 2021 and the tender summary report dated23[rd] December, 2021 are liable to be revoked.

Learned lawyer appearing for therespondents submits that as per tender informationunder section (2), the techno-commercial envelopeshall contain power of attorney and authorisation ofsignature of the signatory by the bank in accordancewith clause 14.3 of section 4, Part-A. Rule 3(7) alsorequires that the tender will be accompanied byattestation of the signature of the authorisedsignatory by power of attorney as well as by theauthorisation of signature by the bank. Learnedlawyer also points out that the power of attorney atpage-55 does not reveal the name of any advocate,who identified the petitioner no. 2 before the NotaryPublic. That being so, learned lawyer submits that thetender, as submitted by the petitioners was defectiveand it was rightly rejected by the authority concerned.

I have perused all the documents annexed tothe writ application. It appears that the tender of thepetitioners was rejected on the ground that thescanned copy of attestation of the specimen signatureof the authorised signatory by the bank as per clause14.3, of section 4, Part-A was missing.

As it appears from section 2 pertaining totender information, the tender shall be submittedsupported by power of attorney in accordance with clause 14.3 of section 4, Part-A. Besides, theattestation of signature of the authorised signatoryshall also be made by the concerned bank.

It is not in dispute that the tender submittedby the petitioners did not contain the attestation ofthe signature by the bank. A reading of the tenderinformation shows that apart from authorisation byway of a power of attorney, the attestation of thesignature should be by the bank also. Here, theattestation of the signature of the authorisedsignatory not made by the concerned bank.

As pointed out by learned lawyer for therespondents, this Court after going through the copyof the power of attorney finds that the signature of thepetitioner no. 2 is not identified by any learnedadvocate. This, prima facie shows that the power ofattorney is not in order.

Having heard learned lawyers appearing forthe parties and on consideration of therules/guidelines relating to tender information, I donot find any justification to interfere with the decisionof the authority concerned in rejecting the tender ofthe petitioners.

In view of the above, the writ application isdismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiouslyupon compliance of all necessary legal formalities.

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)