Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
S. Hukato Swu, J.
I. Yanger Jamir - Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) 116/2020
Decided On: 17-08-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32,226,226(3) - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part - Power of High Courts to issue certain - Whether NIT was floated/published in newspaper and to indicate persons who tendered their bids in pursuance of the said NIT – Whether second installment would be released to take advantage of same - Whether installment has been released or not does not effect merits of case - Whether facts were suppressed to influence Court – Held, Court have limited projects for development, when few schemes are sanctioned, it is observed that they do not get implemented as desired to give benefit to people - They rather spent precious time in the Courts doing great disservice to the people, all because of violation of the rules in award of contract in unfair and in transparent manner by the responsible authority - What can be more compelling reasons for the Courts to interfere - If the Courts do not take steps to channelize these malpractices of table tenders and whimsical award of largess of the State to few selected people, Court heading towards despotism - There is enormous irregularity in awarding contract impugned which is impermissible - There cannot be a system of hide and seek where the largess of State is to be awarded to citizens - There may be minor aberrations committed by petitioner while presenting writ petition, however, these issues are not of enormous consideration for the Court compared to flagrant violation of fundamental rights committed by the State respondents to desist itself from interfering with such actions - It would amount to shunning from the assigned duty of forwarding the cause of substantial justice – Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
S. HUKATO SWU, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner Mr. Imti Longjem assisted by Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Sentiyanger for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate Mr. Moa Imchen appears for the respondent No. 6 and learned counsel Mr. Tongpok Pongener appears for the respondent No. 7.
2. The crux of the matter in the present writ petition is related to the award of to the petitioner by respondent No. 6 by a Work Order No. HR/EE/HD-III/NEC/PHM/2017-18, dated 07.06.2018 to the petitioner's firm. The work is for the Post Harvest Management of Horticulture Crops at Mokokchung, Dimapur, Wokha, Peren, Tuensang and Phek. A contract agreement to the effect was executed on 11.06.2018.
3. The work relates to the project for Post Harvest Management of Horticulture Crops (Cold Rooms, Pack Rooms (Marketing Infrastructure) in Dimapur, Mokokchung, Peren, Tuensang, Phek and Wokha districts. The NEC under the Government of India, Ministry of DONER by letter No. NEC/AGRI/PH/NG/2015, dated 28.12.2017 gave administrative approval of Rs. 717.90 lakh (Rupees seven crores seventeen lakhs and ninety thousand) only. As per the said approval order, project is to be implemented by the Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium Nagaland Abbreviated as (SFACN).
4. The incidents leading to the petitioner being awarded the work order was by a Notice Inviting Tender in the Notice Board affixed by respondent No. 6 in letter No. HR/EE/HD III/NEC/PHM/2017-18, dated 21.04.2018 inviting all registered PWD 1st Class Contractors to participate in the bid. Three bidders participated in the said bid out of which one was found to be invalid and the petitioner was selected being the lowest bidder. The comparative statement was approved and returned by the Office of the Chief Engineer PWD (H) to the respondent No. 6, vide letter NO. CE (H)/TB/HORTI/NEC/2018-405, dated 06.06.2018. Thereafter, completing all formalities the petitioners' firm was awarded the Work Order No. HR/EE/HD-III/NEC/PHM/2017-18, dated 07.06.2018.
5. However, the Managing Director of the SFACN who was also the Principal Secretary of Horticulture Department by Work Order No. NL/SFAC-20/NEC/2017-18, dated 19.03.2018 awarded the work to the respondent No. 7. By corrigendum No. NL/SFAC-20/NEC/2017-18, dated 11.06.2018, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner dated 19.03.2018 was superseded. The Managing Director of SFACN and Principal Secretary of Department of Horticulture thus awarded the entire contract for Post Harvest Management of Horticulture Corps (Cold rooms, Pack Houses, Marketing Infrastructure) in the districts of Dimapur, Mokokchung, Peren, Tuensang, Phek and Wokha to respondent No. 7 by bringing out corrigendum. The contractual amount was for a sum of Rs. 7,17,90,000/- (Rupees seven crores seventeen lakhs and ninety thousand) only. But the record shows that the DPR had not even been approved at the relevant time.
6. The work order was issued in favour of respondent No. 7 without floating/issuing any Notice Inviting Tender. For the stated facts, the contract awarded to the respondent No. 7 is absolutely arbitrary and illegal.
7. The petitioner challenged the work order dated 19.03.2018 and corrigendum dated 11.06.2018, issued in favour of respondent No. 7 by filing W.P.(C) No. 154 (K) of 2018. By an order dated 20.08.2018, this Court had issued notice upon the respondents and stayed the work order dated 19.03.2018 and corrigendum dated 11.06.2018. In that writ petition, Secretary of Agriculture and Co-operation, the Secretary to the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region and the Secretary, NEC were arrayed as respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. However, they filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 26.03.2019, stating that they were sanctioning authority and also had released the sanction to the State Government, therefore, if any irregularities arises in the execution, the matter was between the S
Public interest and fairness must govern the tendering process, prohibiting judicial intervention in absence of mala fides or arbitrariness.
The petitioner's lack of locus standi due to not fulfilling the technical qualification criteria and gross delay in approaching the court led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
Judicial review in contractual matters is limited to evaluating decision-making processes and does not extend to substituting the authority's decisions unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala ....
(1) Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.(2) A wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard before rescinding a contract, in accordance with the principles of natural....
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
