Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 772
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.K.Sharma, J.
Subhas Mitra -Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. -Resopndent
WP(C) No. 2130 0/2006
Decided On : 20-08-2006
M.Hazarika, A.Ajitsaria, C.Baruah, N.K.Baruah, M.Bora
The court emphasized the importance of fair competition in the tender process and upheld the authority of the respondents to reject bids based on valid grounds.
Headnote:
Tender Process - Execution of Works - Margherita Sanglang Road - [NIT, ITB, Article 226] - The court discussed the rejection of technical bids for the construction of a single lane bridge and the subsequent decision to execute the work departmentally. The court highlighted the importance of fair competition in the tender process and the authority of the respondents to reject bids. The court also emphasized that it is not for the writ court to determine the fairness of a policy decision, but to ensure that the decision was taken in a fair manner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents to execute the works departmentally after rejecting the technical bids for the construction of a single lane bridge. The respondents cited time constraints as the reason for not re-inviting tenders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to execute the work departmentally was justified due to the time-bound nature of the scheme and the expenditure already incurred. The rejection of the technical bid was based on valid grounds, and the court upheld the decision of the respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of technical bids, the authority of the respondents to execute the work departmentally, and the fairness of the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair competition in the tender process and upheld the authority of the respondents to reject bids. It also highlighted that the writ court's role is to ensure the fairness of the decision-making process, not to determine the fairness of the policy decision itself.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, upholding the decision of the respondents to execute the work departmentally and rejecting the challenge to the rejection of the technical bid.
2. The petitioner is a class 1-A contractor. He responded to the NIT dated 12.9.2005 issued by the respondents. The works involved is -"Improvement of Margherita Sanglang Road (SH : - construction of single lane bridge at Chainage-35.900 KM and 37.500 KMJ". The approximate value of the work was estimated at Rs. 99,48,179. It appears that three other parties also submitted their tenders in response to the NIT. Their technical bids were approved and they were requested to attend the office for opening of the financial bids. However, by letter dated 23.3.2006, the decision to go for fresh tender process was communicated and thus the tender process initiated came to an end without finality.
3. After the aforesaid abandonment of the first tender process with the decision to go for a fresh tender, the respondents issued fresh NIT on 7.1.2006 with the same terms and condition. This time also, the petitioner alongwith others responded to the same by submitting tenders. However, by the impugned decisions as conveyed by Annexure-D and E communications dated 23.3.2006 and 20.3,2006, this tender process has also come to an end with the further decision to execute the work departmental/having regard to paucity of time, the scheme under which the work is to be executed being a time bound one.
4. The basic ground of challenge made in the writ petition against the impugned decisions is that the petitioner having been found to be qualified in the technical bid at the first instance, could not have been held to be not qualified in the second instance, when the terms and conditions of both the tenders remained the same. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have, inter alia, contended as follows:
"5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the deponent states that only 4 parties, namely, (1) M/s. Kameng Engineering, Bhalukpong(A.P), (2) M/s. Arunachal Iron & Steel Traders, Basar (A.P), (3) Sri Subhash Mitra, Ledo, Assam and (4) Sri Krishno Lynhdoh, Smith Meghalaya submitted tenders against 1st Tender Notice. But two tenders namely (1) M/s. Kameng Engineering, Bhalukpong (A.P) and (2) M/s. Arunachal Iron Steel Traders, Basar (A.P) withdrawn their tenders with earnest money for reason best known to them. So only two tenders of (3) (3) Sri Subhash Mitra, Ledo, Assam and (4) Sri Krishno Lyngdoh, Smith Meghalaya above remained.
6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 5 o the writ petition the deponent states that as stated earlier initially the tender for construction Margherita Changlang Road (SH : Single lane bridge at chainage 35,900 and 37,500 Km) was purchased by four parties mentioned above. But the two contractors namely M/s. Kameng Engineering, Bhalufepong, Arunachal Pradesh and M/s. Iron and Steel Traders, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh with drawn their tenders with their earnest money without assigning any reason thereof. Thereby, the competition reduced to only among the two tenders left in the field, i.e., Sri Subhash Mitra, Ledo, Assam and Sri Krishno Lynhdoh, Smith Meghalaya.
After opening of the financial bids of the two contractors, the comparative statement and evaluation against the various items of works covered in the contract for construction of Single lane bridges at Chainage 35,900 and 37,500
