Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
NELSON SAILO, J.
M/s Asean Agencies – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 238 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Tender - Bid - Allotment of the work – There is no compulsion for the authority concerned to seek for clarification before coming to a finding that the tender of a particular tenderer is not responsive. Para 11
Finding of Court : Petitioner has tried to impress upon Court about fact that in a Tender Notice, requirements can be classified into two (2) categories i.e., those which lay down essential conditions of eligibility and others, which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with main object to be achieved by condition by relying upon case of Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) - Court considered view, said decision does not come to rescue of petitioner in view of fact that relevant clause mentioned in impugned order dated being a part of technical bid cannot be considered to be ancillary or subsidiary with main object to be achieved in a tender, which has a value of work amounting to Rs. 39.10 Crores - Case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) in my considered view has no application to present case.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.
2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure-9) by which the technical bids of the petitioner was found to be non-responsive due to non-fulfillment of Clauses 4.5.4, 4.5.9 & 4.5.10 under Section 1 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to give an opportunity to the petitioner to clarify or modify his technical bids as provided under Clause 23.4 (ii) of the Invitation For Bids (IFB). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to award the work order to the petitioner for the work mentioned in the IFB dated 21.07.2019 (Annexure-3).
3. The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent No. 4 published the IFB dated 21.07.2019 for construction of road from Rumgong ADC Headquarter to connect Kaying EAC Headquarter 64 km (PH-I) (Molom to Bogne village 23.00 km in Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh) with approximate value of work at Rs. 3910.00 lakhs. There were seven (7) tenderers who participated in the tendering process and ultimately, after evaluation of the tender documents, the petitioner was recommended for allotment of the work. The respondent No. 3 then wrote to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 17.02.2020 seeking the approval of the competent authority for allotment of the work to the petitioner. However, due to certain complaint submitted by the MLA for cancelling the tender process alongwith a proposal to call for re-tendering, a decision was taken by the State Government in the Public Works Department (PWD) to call for a fresh tender while rejecting the recommendation for selecting the petitioner for the work as was conveyed by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 on 17.02.2020 (Annexure-4). The said decision was conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, PWD to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure-7).
4. The petitioner being highly aggrieved with the above communicated filed WP (C) No. 245(AP)/2020 challenging the said communication and with a further prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to award the work to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 22.02.2022 whereby, the impugned communication dated 28.08.2020 was set aside and quashed and at the same time, the communication dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure-4) by which the petitioner was recommended for approval of the competent authority to be allotted the work was also set aside. This Court was of the view that since the IFB issued on 21.07.2019 was not concluded in the manner as was indicated in the IFB and the instruction issued to the bidder (ITB), remanded the matter back to the respondent authorities to finalize the IFB dated 21.07.2019 in accordance with the IFB and ITB by considering afresh the bid of the petitioner in the manner indicated in the judgment since none of the bidders except the petitioner had approached the Court.
5. After the writ petition was disposed of in the above manner, the respondent authorities concerned upon considering the bid of the petitioner afresh, issued the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 wherein, it was stated that the bid of the petitioner is found to be non-responsive due to non-fulfillment of certain clauses of the SBD as already mentioned herein above. Aggrieved, the petitioner is once again before this Court.
6. Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner for being awarded the work and for which approval of the competent authority was sought for vide letter dated 17.02.2020 was not approved and rejected vide the communication dated 28.08.2020 mainly because of the interference of the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) o
The rejection of a bid must be based on relevant and material factors, and the decision-making process should not consider extraneous or irrelevant factors.
Rule 23(16)(iv) of Assam Public Procurement Act, 2020 is reproduced Bidders securing specified minimum percent of marks or having fulfilled specific minimum achievement norms as fixed may be consider....
The decision to award a tender contract must be arrived at after objective consideration and evaluation and cannot be interfered with if not found to be arbitrary, malafide, irrational, unreasonable,....
The faulty application of the value of 'N' in the calculation of available bid capacity led to the illegal and arbitrary rejection of the petitioner's bid.
The decision-making process of the tendering authority should be respected unless there is mala fide or perversity, and the court should only interfere in tender matters in furtherance of public inte....
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
