Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
S.MEHTA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ.
Sanjit Chandra Das S/O Jatin Das – Appellant
Versus
Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. And Ors – Respondents
WA 56 of 2023
Decided on : 25-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Tender notice – Technical bid – Settlement – Bid tender – Appeal against judgment and final order – Tendering authority objectively evaluated the bids of the bidders and finding appellant herein to be technically disqualified, his bid was not processed. Para 10
Finding of Court : Tender process was based on a dual bidding system and thus, a strict evaluation of the technical bids so as to ensure compliance of criterion laid down therein, which included submission of a valid Clearance Certificate, was inviolable – Tendering authority upon evaluation of technical bids found that appellant’s Clearance Certificate had expired and there was no option with authority but to disqualify appellant on technical criterion – Court are of firm view that appellant herein was rightly disqualified in technical evaluation process – Learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant and affirming decision of the tendering authority in accepting bid of the private respondent No.4
Result : Writ appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The instant intra-Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 09.11.2022 rendered by learned Single Judge in WP(C) 6190/2022 whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to favourably consider its technical bid as being responsive and consequently to accept its higher financial bid for settlement of a Beel Fishery, namely, Hashila Tinkona Meenmahal in Goalpara district under the administrative control of AFDC, was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of this appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (AFDC) issued a dual bid tender (technical and financial bid) inviting interested SC individuals and registered societies of SC communities having actual fishermen for settlement of Hashila Tinkona Meenmahal in Goalpara district. As per the tender notice, amongst other documents required to be submitted along with the bid, it was essential for the bidders to furnish the Bakijai Clearance Certificate. It may be noted here that indisputably a Bakijai Certificate (in relation to government dues) has a validity period of 90 days from the date of issuance thereof. The appellant/writ petitioner, submitted their technical and financial bids in pursuance of the above NIT. When the technical bids were opened and evaluated, it came to the light that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate of the appellant/writ petitioner had expired and hence, his technical bid was declared to be non-responsive whereas the technical bid of the private respondent No.4 (respondent No.6 in the writ petition) was found to be technically viable. A notice to this effect was put up on 16.09.2022. The appellant/writ petitioner, on gaining knowledge about non-acceptance of its technical bid, submitted an application to the Managing Director of AFDCL requesting the latter to apprise as to why its bid had been rejected. The appellant claimed to have gained knowledge that reason for rejection of its bid was the non-submission of a valid/live Bakijai Clearance Certificate. Thereupon, the above mentioned writ petition came to be filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for challenging the decision declaring his technical bid non-responsive. By an interim order dated 20.09.2022, the learned Single Bench directed the AFDCL to open the price bid of the appellant/writ petitioner which was made subject to further orders as may be passed in the case. It was further directed that no final order of settlement would be issued till the next date fixed. The writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and came to be rejected by the order dated 09.11.2022 which is assailed in the present appeal.
4. Learned senior counsel Mr. D. Das representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the controversy involved in the instant writ appeal is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abu Talib vs. The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and ors. (WA No.294/2011), decided on 29.09.2011. He urged that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench categorically laid down that the requirement of submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate could not be taken as inviolable requirement. Mr. Das also placed reliance on a subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pub Goalpara Fishery Cooperative Society vs. The State of Assam and ors. (WA No.306/2021), decided on 27.04.2022, wherein the principles laid down in the case of Abu Talib (supra) were relied upon and reiterated. It was thus contended by Mr. Das that two Division Benches of this Court having concluded that submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate is not a mandatory requirement in a bid for claiming fishery settlement, the res
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....
Clause 7.4 of terms of tender categorically mandated for submission of up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate.
The court affirmed that the interpretation of tender conditions by the authority is paramount, and minor technical deficiencies do not justify judicial intervention.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
Important Point – Government Contract – Tender – Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during bidding process and that entire bidding process is carri....
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 emphasized that strict compliance with tender conditions is essential and that arbitrary qualification despite disqualifications undermines the fairness required in the contracting process.
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
