The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for free play in the joints by the authorities and the interest of public service. The court emphasized the importance of minimal interference in contractual matters and the authority's understanding and appreciation of tender documents.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked by filing the present writ petition. The subject matter of this writ petition is in connection with a tender process for procurement of Ambulances by the Assam Government wherein, the petitioner, which is a bidder, has questioned the eligibility of the respondent no. 5, a co-bidder and all consequential actions of allotting the work to the said respondent no. 5.

2. For better appreciation of the issue in hand, a brief narration of the facts of the case would be beneficial.

3. A tender notice was floated by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Assam (NHM) dated 01.09.2020 for procurement of 100 units of Type C Ambulances-R. The said notice was uploaded in the GeM portal (Government e-Marketplace). In response to the same, the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 had submitted their respective bids. Upon evaluation, the bid of the respondent no. 5 was found to be the lowest (L1). However, it is the case of the petitioner that upon careful examination of the credentials and testimonials of the respondent no. 5, it was detected that the respondent no. 5 had shared credentials of M/S Force Motors Ltd., including the certificate issued by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) for Type C Ambulances. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 having claimed to be an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), it could not have shared the OEM documents of another company before the GeM in the present tender process. It is the further case of the petitioner that the discrepancy which was a major one was reported to the GeM which in its reply vide email dated 09.10.2020 was prima facie satisfied regarding the said discrepancy that the number of the ARAI certificate was of another company. The matter was accordingly requested to be lodged as an incident before the GeM so that proper action could be taken. However, the petitioner could come to know that in spite of acknowledging such discrepancy, the impugned purchase order dated 27.10.2020 was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed on 02.11.2020.

4. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2020, while directing the case to be listed for motion on 18.11.2020 to enable the Department to place instructions, had ordered maintenance of status quo till the next date fixed. The said interim order was continued by this Court and is in operation till date.

5. I have heard Shri J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri D Saikia, learned Senior Counsel as well as Shri B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, Assam representing all the official respondents. Shri P Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has advanced his arguments via Remote Video Conference. Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has also produced the records of the case.

6. Shri Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire process of tender for procurement of the Ambulances has been done through the GeM, before which the respondent no. 5 has declared itself to be an OEM. In view of such declaration, it was mandatory on the part of the respondent no. 5 to share its own credentials, including the ARAI certificate which admittedly was not done rendering the bid of respondent no. 5 defective and not liable for any consideration and consequently, the purchase order dated 27.10.2020 is liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that the particular Ambulance in question, namely, Type C Ambulance-R falls under CMS Quadrant 1 as per GeM policy. The offer has to be made only from GeM validated OEMs. Since, the respondent no. 5 had registered themselves before the GeM as OEM, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 5 to share its own credentials of OEM before the procuri