Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 1196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Anima Hazarika, J.
Dibrugarh Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam & Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) No. 1705 & 2378 of 2012
Decided On: 15.10.2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S.S. Dey, Mr. D.K Das, Mr. S. Banik, Mr. P. Bhuyan, Mr. I. Choudhury, Mr. R.M. Deka & Mr. N.J. Khataniar
For Respondents/Defendant:Mrs. B. Sharma Goyal, GA, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate, Md. Aslam, Mr. D. Senapati & Ms. K. Kalita
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 229 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 4 and 7 – Tenders – Biddering - While writ petitioners in both cases as well as other tenderers had submitted one tender each quoting their respective bids in terms of NIT it is an admitted fact that private respondent had submitted two bids one quoting and another as annual price - Settling authorities took into consideration both bids submitted by private respondents and selected tender quoting higher bid thereby settling fishery with said Respondent for seven years at rate of their quoted bid - Short points for consideration of this Court raised by writ petitioners in both writ petitions are as to whether a single tenderer can be allowed to submit multiple bids by way of more than one tender in same tender process for settlement of particular fishery in question and as to whether submission of such multiple bids would disentitle said tenderer from being considered in settlement process - Held, Even if there is no laid down guidelines by State or its instrumentality in a given case any permission to a particular single bidder to submit multiple bids in a tender process quoting different proposal of a bidder will negate legal mandate of quoting an absolute and unqualified proposal to be eligible for an acceptance of said terms - Further in public law domain if a particular tenderer is allowed to submit multiple bids it will give rise to chaos whereby basic requirement of fair play and equal treatment of all tenderers by agency or authority doling out contract would stand severely frustrated - On one hand authority presiding over decision making process will be jeopardized to pinpoint which of multiple offers of a tenderer should be taken into consideration and on other hand a tenderer submitting a single form proposal will stand jeopardized in process of competition as against such tenderer submitting multiple bids if authorities deciding on tenders can choose one amongst such multiple offers of a single bidder - In a process convened for selection of bid of a particular tenderer by inviting intending bidders to submit their bids in sealed cover any liberty given to a tenderer allowing him to submit multiple bids and thereafter also taking into consideration all such multiple bids and selecting one amongst them will be in violation of tenets and would also be in derogation of mandates - Petition allowed.
Anima Hazarika, J.
1. Both the writ petitions are based on identical facts and involves same question of law for determination of this Court. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up together for Consideration. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) 1705/2012 Mr. I Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) 2378/2012 and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. K. Kalita, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 5 in W.P.(C) 1705/2012 as well as respondent No. 4 in W.P.(C) 2378/2012. Also heard Ms. B Sharma Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents in both the writ petitions.
2. In both the writ petitions challenge has been made against an order No. FISH.56/86/Pt.II/215 dated 31.3.2012 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department settling the Sessa Nadi Fishery of Dibrugarh District with M/S. Dewanbari Doyang Beel Unnayan Samiti, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in W.P.(C) 1705/2012 and W.P.(C) 2378/2012. The fishery has been settled with the said respondent at their quoted bid value of Rs.98,00,000/- for 7(seven) years. The settlement order has been issued in the name of the Governor of Assam in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 12 of Assam Fishery Rules, 2005.
3. The necessary admitted and uncontroverted facts of the two petitions can be summarized as under:
The Writ Petitioners in both the cases as well as the aforesaid private respondents have submitted their bids in terms of a Notice Inviting Tender dated 8.12.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh District, inter alia, inviting tenders from recognized Cooperative Societies, Self Help Groups and Non Government Organizations for settlement of the Sessa Nadi Fishery. While the writ petitioners in both the cases as well as other tenderers had submitted one tender each quoting their respective bids in terms of the NIT dated 08.12.2011, it is an admitted fact that the private respondent M/s. Dewanbari Doyang Beel Unnayan Samiti had submitted two bids, one quoting Rs.14,00,000/- and another Rs.3,51,221/- as annual price. The settling authorities took into consideration both the bids submitted by the private respondents and selected the tender quoting higher bid of Rs.14,00,000/- thereby settling the fishery with the said Respondent for 7(seven) years at the rate of their quoted bid i.e., Rs.98,00,000/- (Rs.14,00,000 X 7).
4. The short points for consideration of this Court raised by the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are as to whether a single tenderer can be allowed to submit multiple bids by way of more than one tender in the same tender process for settlement of the particular fishery in question and as to whether submission of such multiple bids would disentitle the said tenderer from being considered in the settlement process.
5. The respondent settling authority has filed an Affidavit in W.P.(C) 1705 of 2012 taking a stand that the Assam Fishery Rules 2005 (as amended) does not bar a society from offering two bids. Moreover, in the instant case the highest of the two bids submitted by the Private Respondent having been accepted, there was no illegality in the settlement process. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Dibrugarh on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has filed another affidavit commenting upon the non-submission of Annual Balance Sheet of the Private Respondent, determination of effect whereof is not the subject matter within the periphery of points for consideration coined above.
6. The Private Respondent has submitted its affidavit-in-opposition in W.P.(C) 1705/2012 through its Secretary Sri Chandra Nath Das inter alia stating that there is no bar against submission of two bids, as submitted by it as there is no stipulation, in any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents and it is only when the authorities have put bar on submission of multiple tenders that as a consequence thereo
