Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
M/s Saptarshi Industries and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam Represented By the Commissioner and Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/4106 & 4342 of 2021
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985– Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 – Section 1(1)(c) – Whether order, issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the 1985 Act, published in Gazette of India is valid as on date, has been taken up – Whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check – Whether choice or decision is 'sound' - Author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that the owner or employer of the project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the Constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. (Para 30)
Finding of the court: Court may also refer to decision of Supreme Court of India in case wherein it was emphasized that author of document is best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that owner or employer of project may give an interpretation to tender documents that is not acceptable to Constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with interpretation given – Court may also refer to decision of Supreme Court of India in case wherein it was emphasized that author of document is best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that owner or employer of project may give an interpretation to tender documents that is not acceptable to Constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with interpretation given.
Results: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are common.
a. In W.P.(C) 4106/2021, the petitioners have challenged the e-Tender notice for Supply of Uniform Chadar and Mekhela/Sarees to the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers of Anganwadi Centres and Mini-Anganwadi Centres in Assam for the Financial Year 2021-22”. Moreover, also in challenge is the Corrigendum dated 10.08.2021, by which Qualification Criteria Point No. 8 in Section 1-A NIT dated 09.08.2021, was substituted.
b. In W.P.(C) 4106/2021, the following prayers have been made, viz., (a) to set aside and quash the conditions at clause no. 1, 7, 8 and 13 of Sl. No. 1 relating to eligibility of bidders qualification criteria as prescribed in Section 1-A in the NIT dated 09.08.2021 and the corrigendum dated 10.08.2021 issued by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam; (b) for directing the state respondents to forthwith cancel/recall/rescind and/or otherwise forebear from giving effect to the said clause no. 1, 7, 8 and 13 of Sl. No. 1 of Section 1-A of the said NIT and corrigendum; (c) for directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation dated 12.08.2021 submitted by the petitioners; (d) directing the respondents to suitably amend the impugned qualification criteria of the said NIT and corrigendum, enabling the petitioners to participate in the tender process.
c. In W.P.(C) 4342/2021, the petitioners have challenged the NIT dated 10.08.2021, being “e-Tender notice for Supply of Two additional sets of Sarees/Local Dress for Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under POSHAN Abhiyaan for the Financial Year 2020-21”.
d. The following prayers have been made in W.P.(C) 4342/2021, viz., (a) to set aside and quash the conditions at clause no. 1, 7, 8 and 13 of Sl. No. 1 relating to eligibility of bidders qualification criteria as prescribed in Section 1-A in the NIT dated 10.08.2021 issued by respondent no.4; (b) for directing the State respondents to forthwith cancel/recall/rescind and/or otherwise forebear from giving effect to the said clause no. 1, 7, 8 and 13 of Sl. No. 1 of Section 1-A of the said NIT; (c) for directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent no. 4 to consider the representation dated 17.08.2021 submitted by the petitioners; (d) directing the respondents to suitably amend the impugned qualification criteria of the said NIT, enabling the petitioners to participate in the tender process.
3. The petitioner no.1 in both the writ petitions is the registered small scale industries unit and government supplier, who claims to have successfully supplied uniforms for schools and Anganwadi Centers including supply of uniform Chadarand Mekhelaunder the Directorate of Social Welfare Assam for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner no. 1 firm.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 2 had come across the said two NITs, dated 09.08.2021 and 10.08.2021. The “e-Tender notice for Supply of Uniform Chadar and Mekhela/Sarees to the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers of Anganwadi Centres and Mini-Anganwadi Centres in Assam for the Financial Year 2021-22”, bearing Tender No. DSW(ICDS)G/96/2021/19 dated 09.08.2021, as well as the Corrigendum dated 10.08.2021, were both issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam.
5. The e-Tender for supply of two additional sets of uniforms for Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers under POSHAN Abhiyaan, Assam for the financial year 2020-2021 bearing no. SPMU(POSHAN)/IEC Procurement/72/2020/34 dated 10.08.2021 issued
Point of Law : The author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that the owner or employer of the project may give an ....
Point of Law : The author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that the owner or employer of the project may give an ....
Eligibility criteria in tenders must be reasonable and serve public interest, and courts will not interfere unless proven arbitrary or malicious.
The court upheld the validity of the tendering authority's criteria, emphasizing that terms are not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.
Government procurement processes must ensure fairness and adherence to legal norms, avoiding arbitrary exclusions.
The Court emphasized the limited scope for interference in matters relating to tender/contract and the need for public interest and prudence in applying the principle of restraint.
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
