Point of Law: Court exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India has jurisdiction to examine decision making process without even going into merits of such decision.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The issue of maintaining transparency and fairness in matters of distribution of State largesse has once again been raised by means of the present writ petition. While the petitioner alleges that there has been gross violation of the established principles of law pertaining to distribution of State largesse, the version of the respondents is that no infirmity or illegality has been committed in the connected tender process and therefore there is no requirement of any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

2. Before going to the issue which is required to be adjudicated, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

3. A Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2021 was issued by the Forest Department for settlement of seven numbers of mineral concession areas for extraction of sand and ordinary clay. The area in serial no. 6 of the said notice namely, Khamtighat is connected with the present petition.

4. The petitioners contend that the petitioner No. 1 had participated in the said tender process and submitted its bid along with four numbers of other bidders. It is further stated that certain complaints were received by the Tender Committee on the aspect of misevaluation of the tender documents. Accordingly, the Tender Evaluation Committee conducted a fresh evaluation of the technical bids and prepared a fresh comparative statement on 12.07.2021. In the new evaluation, three bidders were found ineligible and accordingly disqualified and therefore, there remained two bidders including the petitioner No. 1, Firm. However, on 21.07.2021, the other technically qualified bidder, namely, Shri Ranjan Dutta had withdrawn his tender and therefore the petitioner remained as the only technically qualified bidder.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the bidding document itself contained a Clause being Clause No. 8 as per which a sole bidder could be given the offer at an amount that shall be greater than 200% of the reserved price and his initial price offered. However, in spite of the aforesaid provision by which the case of a sole bidder could be considered without compromising with the aspect of revenue, the tender was cancelled vide a notice dated 04.08.2021. The petitioners further submits that after the disqualification of the three bidders, six numbers of Members of the Legislative Assembly, Assam had written a letter to the Guardian Minister of the Dibrugarh district alleging certain anomalies in the tender process and the said complaints were forwarded by the Guardian Minister to the authorities for necessary action. The petitioners alleges that the impugned cancellation has been done only because of the fact that three bidders were held to be ineligible and on the intervention of certain MLAs, the entire process was cancelled so as to give a further chance to the ineligible bidders. Accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. On the other hand, the projection made by the petitioners have been refuted by the respondent by stating that the cancellation has been done in accordance with law and in the interest of public. Certain other objections including the objection of waiver has been taken by the respondents.

7. I have heard Shri B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department whereas the private respondent No. 6 is represented by Shri D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Khound. Shri M.P. Sharma, the learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 7.

8. Shri Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and opposed to the public interest. He also submits that the action is in violation of the terms of the tender document.

9. The learned counsel submits that there was no basis for cancellation of the process which was initiated vide the NIT dated 05.05.2021 per