IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
TAFE Motors and Tractors Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam, Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati - Respondent
WRIT APPEALNO.198, 199 OF 2021, Arising out of W.P.(C)No.8696/2019
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Challenge made to the fresh financial price bids - Tender Evaluation Committee - Challenge made to the fresh financial price bids- challenging the evaluation as well as the award of the contracts to the short listed bidders.
Finding of the Court:
State is under no compulsion to enter into negotiation or enter into contract with any party in respect of supply of any goods and services. However, it is also widely accepted that to remove any arbitrariness and to make the entire process transparent, invitation to bid or NIT is considered to be the most widely accepted procedure to invite for supply of Goods and Services by the State. However, where the State has called for such NITs or tenders, with specific conditions laid down therein with regard to the process of evaluation and settlement of such tenders, it is required to adhere to the process published by which it has invited bidders to offer their bids for supply of Goods and Services.
Result: Appeal disposed of
JUDGEMENT :
Soumitra Saikia, J.
This Writ Appeal arises out of a common Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge made to the fresh financial price bids called for by the respondents and the prayers for not giving effect to the fresh financial bids submitted, were negated and the writ petitions were dismissed.
2. Under the Chief Minister Samagra Gramya Unnayan Yojna, Jaya Nagar, (CMSGUY) Khanapara, Guwahati scheme, it was decided that Tractors and Matching Implements were to be supplied in villages to members of the farming community across the State of Assam through beneficiary groups. In pursuance to the said scheme, by a Notice dated 04.02.2019, the Director of Agriculture, Government of Assam invited competitive rates for Tractors and Matching Implements from the manufacturers of tractors for phase-II of the scheme for distribution of tractors unit under the Chief Minister Samagra Gramya Unnayan Yojna, Jaya Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati. By the NIT Bids were invited for supply of Tractors and Matching Implements in the following categories:-
(ii) More than 40 PTO HP and up to 45 PTO HP.
(iii) More than 45 PTO HP and 50 PTO HP.
3. Amongst the various conditions mentioned in the NIT the following conditions have relevance in the present proceedings and are therefore extracted:-
5. The subsidy will be restricted to the L1 price quoted by the responsive manufacturer in each category.
6. The evaluation of the competitive price will be made only on the basis of the rate quoted against each of the make and model of a tractor by them manufacturer. In no case, the rates quoted against the matching implements will be loaded with the tractor for price evaluation.
11. The beneficiary group may procure the tractor of selected model and make along with implements, if so opted, from any authorized dealer of the manufacturer in the state. The group may negotiate with the dealer to bring rates below the price quoted by manufacturer.”
4. Pursuant to the Tender Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 29.03.2019, the appellants and 6 (six) other bidders were found to be technically responsive in the 3 (three) categories as referred above. One of the bidder who was found to be technically non-responsive had filed a writ petition before this Court being WP (C) 2678/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2019 directing the respondents to consider the bid offered by the said bidder to be technically responsive and thereafter consider its price bid along with other technically responsive bidders.
5. The Financial bids were opened on 06.07.2019 and the appellants were found to be within the criteria specified. In terms of the Clause 4 of the NIT dated 04.02.2019, 50% of the most competitive rates offered against the particular model were to be selected. Against the nine (9) qualified bidders, the appellant in W.A. No. 198/2021 was the L-6 bidder in the category (i)-“35 PTO HP or more than 35 PTO HP and up to 40 PTO HP”; L-8 Bidder in category (ii)-“more than 40 PTO HP and upto 45 PTO HP” and L-5 Bidder in category (iii)-“Morethan 45 PTO HP and 50 PTO HP”. The appellant in W.A No. 199/2021 was within the 50% technically qualified bidders as per Clause 4.
6. Thereafter, a cabinet decision was taken by the Government in respect of the present Chief Minister Samagra Gramya Unnayan Yojna, Jaya Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati scheme regarding distribution of Tracto
Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517
Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. SLL-SML & Ors reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622
Vice Chairman and Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation
Point of Law : Deviation in the NIT resorted to by the State was arbitrary and therefore colourable, the appellants are at liberty to pursue other legal remedies, before any appropriate forum of law,....
Point of law: Tender/Contract – Judicial Review - Equal opportunity granted to all technically qualified bides – No question of violation of fundamental rights.
The court upheld the award of a contract based on public interest considerations, affirming that deviations from tender procedures do not necessarily invalidate the process if no responsive competito....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The court upheld that the re-evaluation of abnormally low bids by a constituted Sub-committee was proper, ensuring adherence to fair evaluation standards in public procurement processes.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
Judicial review of tender criteria is limited to instances of proven arbitrariness or discrimination; valid justifications for increased financial thresholds can be upheld to promote efficiency and e....
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.