Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Indian Institute of Technology and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Minakshi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 289 of 2019
Decided On : 22-11-2019
R.P. Kakoti, Advocate, B.J. Ghosh, Advocate
Adherence to the prescribed procedure in the tender notice and the prohibition of changing the rules of the game after it had begun.
Headnote:
Tender Notice - Laundry Services - [Public Procurement Act, 2002, Section 23(1)(a); Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73] - The court analyzed the tender process for laundry services and the financial bids submitted by the bidders. The court highlighted the specific method of calculation provided in the tender notice and emphasized that allowing a different procedure would change the tender conditions and the rules of the game after it had begun. The court found that the appellant's realization of higher payment implications cannot be a reason to change the prescribed procedure in the tender notice. The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to set aside the allotment of the work and remand the matter back to the authorities for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant issued a Tender Notice inviting bids for providing hospitality, housekeeping, and catering services, including laundry services. The respondent No. 1 and No. 2 submitted financial bids for the laundry component. The appellant awarded the contract to respondent No. 1, prompting respondent No. 2 to file a writ petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge set aside the allotment of the work in favor of respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh decision. The court found that the appellant's realization of higher payment implications cannot be a reason to change the prescribed procedure in the tender notice.
Issues: Arbitrariness in decision making process, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, correctness of mathematical formula applied by the appellant IITG.
Ratio Decidendi: The specific method of calculation provided in the tender notice must be adhered to, and a subsequent realization of higher payment implications cannot justify changing the prescribed procedure. Deviating from the tender conditions would change the rules of the game after it had begun.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be devoid of any merit and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Bujor Barua, J.
Heard, Mr. R.P Kakoti, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.J Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 on Caveat.
2. The appellant Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (for short, IITG) issued a Tender Notice bearing No. IITG/Estb/17/NIT-03/GH/Housekeeping and Catering, Dated 11.12.2017 inviting tendered bids in a two-bid system, i.e., technical bid and financial bid, for providing round the clock hospitality, housekeeping and catering services at the institute guest house. The hospitality and housekeeping component of the bid also included for providing laundry services. The tender notice provided that for the purpose of the bid for the laundry component, bids are required to be submitted in the manner as indicated therein. The manner indicated was as follows:-
"Considering present requirement for laundry service for the institute items and based occupancy, 30 numbers of each item of Part-C in the Financial Bid will be assumed to be required per day. Therefore, price evaluation will be done as per quoted rates of each item for 30 nos. for 30 days. (C2)
Evaluation is to be done as follows:-
C=0.85 x C1 + 0.15 x C2
Clow = Lowest bidder in the Financial Bid with the above."
3. The respondent No. 1 in respect of the laundry component of the tender had submitted their financial bid in the following manner:-
| Sl. No. | Items | Unit | Qty./day (tentative) | Rate (Rs.) | Amount (Rs.) |
| 1 | Bed Cover | Each | 30 | 15/- | 450/- |
| 2 | Bed Sheet | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 3 | Pillow Cover | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 4 | Hand towel | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 5 | Bath towel | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 6 | Basin Towel | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 7 | Table cloth | Each | 30 | 80/- | 2400/- |
| 8 | Tray Towel | Each | 30 | 10/- | 300/- |
| 9 | Curtain | Each | 30 | 80/- | 2400/- |
| 10 | Mattress (dry wash), if required | Each | 30 | 200/- | 6000/- |
| 11 | Blankets (dry wash) | Each | 30 | 150/- | 4500/- |
| 12 | Pillow (dry wash), if required | Each | 30 | 100/- | 3000/- |
|
| Total cost per day |
| 20,550/- |
|
|
| C2 | Total cost per month (30 days) |
| 6,16,500/- |
|
|
NOTE: The rate should be inclusive of all relevant taxes and duties. Tenderer may visit the concerned units for seeing the quantum of actual work before submitting the tender and may discuss with the Technical Superintendent (Guest House) for any further information."
4. The respondent No. 2, on the other hand, had submitted their financial bid for the laundry component as under:-
| Sl. No. | Items | Unit | Qty./day (tentative) | Rate (Rs.) | Amount (Rs.) |
| 1 | Bed Cover | Each | 30 | 23.40 | 702.00 |
| 2 | Bed Sheet | Each | 30 | 18.40 | 552.00 |
| 3 | Pillow Cover | Each | 30 | 14.50 | 435.00 |
| 4 | Hand towel | Each | 30 | 9.90 | 297.00 |
| 5 | Bath towel | Each | 30 | 20.50 | 615.00 |
| 6 | Basin Towel | Each | 30 | 9.90 | 297.00 |
| 7 | Table | Each | 30 | 15.00 | 450.00 |
| 8 | Tray Towel |
| 30 | 9.90 | 297.00 |
| 9 | Curtain | Each | 30 | 55.90 | 1677.00 |
| 10 | Mattress (dry wash), if required | Each | 30 | 900.00 | 27000.00 |
| 11 | Blankets (dry wash) | Each | 30 | 400.00 | 12000.00 |
| 12 | Pillow (dry wash), if required | Each | 30 | 50 | 1500.00 |
|
| Total cost per day |
|
|
| 15274.00 |
| C2 | Total cost per month (30 days) |
|
