JUDGMENT :

1. The issue in this writ petition pertains to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) floated by the Jorhat Municipal Board for construction of various roads and drains.

2. The case of the petitioner is that its bid was found to be the lowest in spite of which, the work was not allotted to it and on the other hand, a re-tender notice dated 20.02.2020 was issued which is the subject matter of challenge.

3. At the outset, a brief narration of the facts would be beneficial. The Jorhat Municipal Board (Board) had issued an NIT on 24.01.2020 calling for bids for 39 numbers of civil works under the Board. The work under Sl. No. 29, namely, “Improvement of Borada Phukon Path in Ward No. 14 providing ICBP” is connected with this writ petition.

4. The petitioner contends that amongst others, it had submitted its bids for the aforesaid work along with all required documents. There were four numbers of bids found to be valid and out of which, according to the petitioner, the bid offered by it was the lowest. However, instead of allotting the work to the petitioner, a re-tender notice was issued for four numbers of works, including the aforesaid work at Sl. No. 29.

5. I have heard Shri SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondent no. 1 is represented by Ms. S Sarma, learned State Counsel. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely, Jorhat Municipal Board and its Executive Officer, respectively are represented by Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel.

6. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant conditions of the tender. He submits that as per Clause 5, rates are to be clearly quoted both in figures and words legibly and clearly. He further adds that the Clause 5 has to be read with Clause 4 which lays down that the rate should be quoted flat percentage basis i.e., Above/Below/at par schedule rate for the year 2017-18 under PWD, Assam. By referring to the documents submitted by the petitioner in respect of the said work, Shri Goswami, learned counsel has demonstrated that there is no ambiguity with the rate offered which has been given both in figures and words. The learned counsel has also referred to the comparative statement annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Board wherein the alleged reason for declaring the petitioner’s bid invalid has been stated as “not written the rate in figures and words”. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid remark which is the so called reason for declaring the petitioner’s bid as invalid is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and palpably erroneous, inasmuch as, the bid of the petitioner was given absolutely in terms of the clauses of the NIT, namely, Clause 4 and 5. He submits that amongst the four bids, the bid of the petitioner being found the lowest which was 5% below, the work in question, should have been allotted to him and there was no reason at all to take another view and go for fresh tender process.

7. Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel representing the Board, does not agree with the proposal advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the requirement of the NIT to mention the rate has not been done in accordance with the same and therefore, the decision of the Board that the bid of the petitioner is not valid does not suffer from any error. He further submits that a consistent stand has been taken in respect of the other bidders and it is not a case that there was any bias or malafide in taking the decision. Shri Das, however fairly submits that the work is of urgent in nature and any further delay would cause more harassment to the people as it is in connection with improvement of a road.

8. Ms. Sarma, learned State Counsel submits that the dispute being one between the petitioner and the Board, the State would only take a stand which is in accordance with law.

9. The relevant clauses of the aforesaid N