JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. B. Chakraorty, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.7.

2. By filing this writ petition the order dated 31.03.2017 issued by the Jorhat Municipal Board (respondent no 5) granting settlement of the “Truck Stand” in favour of respondent No.7 has been put to challenge.

3. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, is that on 13.02.2017 the Jorhat Municipal Board i.e. the respondent No.5 had issued a tender notice inviting bids for settlement of various markets/stands/parking areas under it for a period of 12 months with effect from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. As per the tender notice dated 13.02.2017 the last date for submission of bids was fixed on 21.03.2017 and the quotations were to be opened at 11.00 a.m. on 22.03.2017. The tender notice dated 13.03.2017 had further stipulated that the bidders will have to submit bids in two parts and the ‘technical bid’ and the ‘price bid’ should be written on it as “Envelope No.1” and “Envelope No.2” respectively. The Envelope No.1 would be opened first and if the technical bid is found to be correct then only the name of the bidder would be entered in the Comparative Statement (CS) whereafter, the Envelope No.2 i.e. the price bid would be opened.

4. In response to the tender notice dated 13.02.2017 the writ petitioner had submitted his bid for the “Truck Stand. Although the date of opening of the bids was originally notified as 22.03.201, the said date was subsequently extended to 24.03.2017 at 1.00 p.m. The technical bids were opened on 24.03.2017. After opening all the technical bids, a comparative statement was prepared incorporating the names of as many as 21 bidders. The price bids were, thereafter, opened on 29.03.2017 and it was found that the writ petitioner had quoted the price of Rs.12,74,150/- (Rupees twelve lakhs seventy four thousand one hundred fifty) whereas the respondent No.7 had quoted a price of Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety thousand). Although the price quoted by the petitioner was higher than that of the respondent No.7 yet, the settlement of the truck stand was made in favour of the respondent No.7 by the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 by ignoring the higher price bid of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed joint counter affidavit inter – alia contending that on 29.03.2017 a meeting of the Jorhat Municipal Board (respondent No 5) was held wherein it was decided that settlement would be given to the bidders who have quoted less than 50% above the Government rate and in case no bidder submits tender below 50% above the Government rate then the settlement would be given near to the above 50% to the Government rate. According to the said respondents, the rate quoted by the writ petitioner was 49.99% above the Government rate and as such, the same was treated as equivalent to 50% above the rates. On such ground the price bid submitted by the writ petitioner was found to be ineligible. Since the bid of the respondent No.7 was the highest amongst those quoting below 50% of the Government rate, hence, a decision was taken by the Board to award the contract in favour of the respondent No.7. Accordingly, the settlement order dated 31.03.2017 was issued in his favour.

6. The respondent No. 7 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it has been inter-alia contended that the writ petitioner had resorted to corrupt practice by erasing the original figures mentioned in his tender document which was above 50% of the Government rate and thereafter, the amount of Rs.12,74,150/- was inserted so as to bring his price bid in conformity with the decision of the Board to award the contract to only those bi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document