IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
Nani Tagia, J.
K.C. Angami and Sons Consortium - Appellants
Vs.
State of Nagaland and Ors.- Respondent
W.P. (C) 97/2020
Decided On : 05-03-2021
Constitution of India - Article 14, Article 226 - Court fees (Assam Amendment) Act, 1972 - Section 28 - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Tender notice - Financial bid - Petitioner contended that since the respondent No. 2 did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the said NIT, namely, the submission of processing fee as indicated in the NIT - Bid of the respondent No. 2 is liable to be rejected and consequent upon rejection of the bid of the petitioner for failure to submit the processing fee as provided in the NIT, the petitioner who is L-2 bidder in terms of the NIT is required to be awarded the work, in question - Whether petition is maintainable - Held, For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and accordingly, the Minutes of meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee in so far as it recommended the bid of the respondent No. 2 stands set aside and quashed - Writ petition allowed and disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Nani Tagia, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kekhriengulie, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State as well as Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the following:-
(ii) Bid opening summary (Financial Bid) of the Minutes of Bid Evaluation dated 22.07.2020, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been shown as L-1 bidder;
(iii) letter dated 17.07.2020 written by the Chief Engineer, PWD (National Highways) Kohima, Nagaland, to the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner vide No. CE/NH/NH(O)/2019-20/102, whereby it has been informed that non submission of the processing fee is not part of the qualification criteria of the bidder as per the Request for Proposal (for short, 'RFP') document; and
(iv) letter dated 22.07.2020 written by the Executive Engineer (D) for Chief Engineer, PWD (NH) Nagaland, Kohima, vide No. CE/NH/NH(O)/2019-20/102 to the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner whereby, while reiterating that processing fee is not a part of the qualification criteria of the bidder as per RFP document as informed vide letter dated 17.07.2020, it has been further informed that processing fee shall be physically submitted by the bidder.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition may, briefly, be stated as follows:-
4. The petitioner is
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others
Bakshi Security and Personnel vs. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Starline Agency vs. Nabajit Das & Ors.
TATA Cellular Vs. Union of India
Asia Foundation and Construction Limited Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd.
Ramen Deka vs. Union of India & Ors.
Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies
Sterling Computers Limited vs. M and N. Publications Limited
Judge Bench in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651
Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others
Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Other
Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Other
Bakshi Security and Personnel vs. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Sterling Computers Limited vs. M and N. Publications Limited
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.