Authority: West Bengal High Court

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s Gita Oxygen Company & Anr., represented by Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sudipta Dasgupta, Baibhav Roy, etc.
  • Respondents: State of West Bengal & Ors., including the tendering authority and the private respondent (represented by counsel including Mr. Sakya Sen). The private respondent is identified as Ellenbarie Industrial Gases Ltd.
  • Tender Details: Supply of medical oxygen cylinders under IP 2022 for Zone B. Eligibility required: minimum 400 A‑type cylinders, 4000 B‑type, and 4000 D‑type cylinders, all PESO‑approved.
  • Stock Declarations: Private respondent declared 300 A‑type cylinders (short of the 400 required). Petitioners possessed the full 400 A‑type cylinders.
  • Timeline:
  • Tender floated: 5 March 2026.
  • First notice of shortfall: 27 May 2026.
  • Second notice of shortfall: 9 June 2026.
  • Petitioners lodged complaint: 8 June 2026.
  • Technical bids opened: 16 July 2026 – authorities accepted private respondent’s technical bid despite shortfall.
  • Financial bids opened: 20 July 2026 – private respondent ranked L1, petitioners L2.
  • Writ petition filed: 23 July 2026.
  • Respondent authorities argued they relaxed the 100‑cylinder shortfall for emergency situations and therefore allowed the private respondent to participate.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Agmatel India Private Ltd. vs. Resoursys Telecom (2022) 5 SCC 362.
  • N.G. Projects Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127.
  • Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply (2023) 19 SCC 1.
  • Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt Ltd. vs. K.P. Sharma (2014) 8 SCC 804.
  • Siboram Bhatta vs. State of West Bengal (2024) WPA 7987.
  • Court Findings:
  • Tender document explicitly required 400 A‑type cylinders; no provision existed for relaxation.
  • Respondent authorities did not record any formal decision to relax the requirement.
  • Acceptance of the private respondent’s bid was therefore arbitrary and whimsical.
  • The court rejected the argument that technical irregularities of minor significance could be waived.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside and quashed the acceptance of the private respondent’s technical bid for Zone B.
  • Respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners’ technical and financial bids for Zone B and to pass an appropriate order.
  • No work order had been issued to date.
  • The writ petition (WPA 18173 of 2026) is disposed of.

Topics: Tender Evaluation, Medical Oxygen Supply