THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Shyam Choudhury, S/o. Dhirsing Choudhury – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented by the Principal Secretary, to the Govt. Of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.2164 Of 2022, WP(C) No.2693 Of 2022, WP(C) No.2448 Of 2022
Decided On : 30-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court hears multiple writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. loan sanctioned for irrigation projects. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. tender documents and eligibility criteria detailed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. tender processes and organizational changes discussed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. challenged tender award and its cancellation process. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. petitioner's claims and court's stance on right to challenge. (Para 30 , 32 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. court's analysis of enforceable rights in the tender context. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. conclusion on cancellation, fresh tender, and final orders. (Para 45 , 46 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2164/2022 and WP(C) No. 2693/2022 as well as Mr. P. K. Bhattacharjee, the petitioner-in-person in WP(C) No.2448/2022. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam and Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in WP(C) No.2164/2022.
2. All the three writ petitions relate to the same tender proceedings and as such this Court proposes to dispose of the three writ petitions by this common judgment.
3. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short, NABARD), by a sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, had sanctioned the loan for providing loan assistance under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF)-XXVI. The said sanction of the loan was in respect to 23 minor irrigation projects in 15 districts of Assam. In terms with the said sanction letter, the total outlay for the projects in question was Rs.3,500.00 lakh and the loan from NABARD was for Rs.3,325.00 lakh and the State Government was to contribute Rs.175.00 lakh. The period of completion of the projects was 31.03.2024. In the said sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, the conditions of the sanction were duly mentioned. Relevant for the purpose of the instant case is Clause.2 (iii) (b) which is quoted herein below:
“(iii) If the State Government fails to initiate the implementation of the projects by issue of necessary work order, etc., within a period of 18 months (1 year 6 months) from the date of the sanction letter, the sanction of the project for RIDF assistance shall lapse.”
4. To the said sanction letter, the name of the projects in question was enclosed by way of a separate sheet. For the purpose of the instant case, the projects at Sl. No.9 & 10 which relate to Solar Powered MDTWS at Pakhimoria and Khagorijan area and Solar Power MDTWS scheme at Juria are relevant.
5. Pursuant to the said sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, the Joint Director, Finance (E.A.) Department vide the communication dated 26.02.2021 accepted the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. In the said communication, a request was also made to release the 1st installment only after specific recommendation from the Finance Department.
6. In pursuance of the above, a notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon on behalf of the Governor of Assam for works of “Solar Powered MDTWS at Pakhimoria and Khagarijan Area under Nagaon Division (Irrigation) and Solar Power MDTWS at Juria under Kalliabor and INTD; Kollong Division (Irrigation) under RIDF-XXVI (NABARD) for the year 2020-21” amounting to Rs.148.00 lakh (approx.) in 5 packages. The said was an online tender and it was mentioned that the details may be seen in the website http://assamtenders.gov.in.
7. For the purpose of the writ petitions in question, the package Nos. 4 & 5, are relevant as the dispute in question has arisen therein. In respect to package No. 4 which pertains to Solar Power MDTW Scheme at Juria (Point No. 1), the value of the work was stated as Rs.29.57 lakh and for package No. 5 which is Solar Power MDTW Scheme at Juria (Point No. 2), the value of the work was of Rs.29.57 lakh. In respect to both the works, the period for completion of the work was 3 (thr
M/S NG Projects Ltd. vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and Others
Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Another
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. CWE-SOMA CONSORTIUM
Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another vs. North-East Frontier Railway and Others
Laxmikant and Others Vs. Satyawan and Others
Rajasthan Housing Board and Another vs. G. S. Investments and Another
Point of Law : when a bidder who has not been issued the final acceptance of the bid by the competent authority being the highest bidder acquires no vested right ,but the bidder has right to equality....
The state has the right to cancel a tender and issue a new one in the interest of public welfare, and bidders do not acquire vested rights until a formal contract is awarded.
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.
The cancellation of a tender process before technical evaluation does not confer vested rights to bidders, and adherence to procurement laws is mandatory in future processes.
The annulment of a tender by the NHAI was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with procedural requirements, affirming the authority's discretion in public procurement.
A public authority's decision to cancel a tender must be reasoned and not arbitrary; failure to provide justifications exposes such decisions to judicial scrutiny.
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.