IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sanjit Chandra Das S/o Jatin Das – Appellant
Versus
Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd And 7 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 6190 of 2022
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Decision of Tendering Authority - Rejected Technical Bid - Seeking Alteration of Order - Application seeking vacation/modification/alteration of order – It was mandated clearly that said up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate if not submitted, tender shall not be accepted. Para 13
Finding of the Court :
Soundness of decision may be questioned, if it is irrational, or malafide or is intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached - Further to that, from judgment in Afcons Ltd. (supra), Supreme court had observed that whether term of NIT is essential or not is a decision of an employer which should be respected and if authority concerned deviates from it, deviation should be made applicable to bidders and potential bidders - Petitioner knowing it very well, then also had submitted an expired Bakijai Clearance Certificate - Committee deciding technical bid had duly taken note of said aspect of matter and had rejected technical bid of petitioner on ground that Bakijai Clearance Certificate had expired - There is no malafide or perversity or irrationality or unreasonableness that could be seen from decision of tendering authority in rejecting technical bid of petitioner - This Court therefore is of opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
ORDER :
Heard Mr.D.Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khound for the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. An application seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the order dated 20/9/2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.6190/2022 has been filed by the Respondent No. 6 which has been registered as I.A.(C) No. 3128/2022. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order dated 20/9/2022 had directed the Respondent (AFDC) would originally open the price bid of the petitioner which should be subject to further order that may be passed in the case. Further to that, there was a direction that the tender may be processed on such basis but no final order of settlement should be issued till the next date fixed. It is on account of this order, the Respondent No. 6 who claims to be qualified and the highest bidder has approached by filing the above application. It is noteworthy to mention that the said application came up for consideration before this Court. Taking into consideration that the decision in this application can only be taken by deciding the merits, the instant writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.
3. For the purpose of appreciating the dispute it is relevant to take note of that the respondent/AFDC Ltd. had on 22/8/2022 issued a two bids tender (technical and financial bids) inviting interested SC individuals and registered Societies for SC communities having 100% actual fishermen for settlement of 1 No. of Beel Fisheries under the administrative control of AFDC Ltd. The entire bid document however have not been filed along with the writ petition. Be that as it may, amongst the various documents required to be submitted along with the tender notice, it was mentioned that the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate has to be submitted. The petitioner admittedly did not submit the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate, instead had submitted a Bakijai Clearance Certificate which had already expired. Pursuant thereto, while evaluating the technical bid, the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 ,7 and 8 have been found to be technically viable which was brought to the attention of all concerned vide the notice dated 16/9/2022. Subsequent thereto the petitioner on coming to learn about the same submitted an application to the Managing Director of AFDC Ltd. requesting the latter to inform as to why his bid has been rejected. Although there was no reply by the Managing Director of the AFDC but the petitioner on enquiry came to learn that on account of non-submission of the updated Bakijai Clearance Certificate, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. It is under such circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bakijai Clearance certificate is not an essential term of the notice inviting tender and as such the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner suffers from unreasonableness and irrationality. The learned counsel referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Abu Tali Vs The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.(WA No. 294/2011 dated 29/9/2011) submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had held that submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate is not an essential term of the notice inviting tender. He therefore, submitted that as the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid in the teeth of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29/9/2011, the impugned Notice dated 16/9/2022 is required to be interfered with.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 6 had submitted that it is the requirement as per the NIT for submission of the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate and admittedly t
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Resoursys Telecoms reported in (2022) 5 SCC 362
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651
Clause 7.4 of terms of tender categorically mandated for submission of up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate.
Point of Law : Interpretation of terms of tender document is best left to tendering authority and if the interpretation so made is manifestly in consonance with the language of tender document, Court....
Judicial review of tendering decisions is limited to assessing legality, with courts refraining from substituting the tender authority's decisions unless in cases of illegality or manifest arbitrarin....
The rejection of bids based on conditions not stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender or the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 was held to be based on irrelevant considerations. The bids of the Petitioners ....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
It is settled position of law that power of judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or mala fide.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
The court affirmed that the interpretation of tender conditions by the authority is paramount, and minor technical deficiencies do not justify judicial intervention.
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.