SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1255

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. F. Khan, Petitioner In Person.
For the Respondents: SC, Irrigation.

Headnote:(A) National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 - Loan assistance under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund - Conditions for implementation outlined in the sanction letter dated 15.02.2021 - Clause 2 (iii) (b) mandates that State must initiate projects within 18 months, failing which sanction lapses. (Para 3)

(B) Bidding Process - Administrative discretion lies with the Employer regarding acceptance or rejection of bids, as per Clause 30 - No right accrues to bidders until formal notification of award is made. (Paras 29 and 42)

(C) Tender Cancellation - Decision by the Chief Engineer to cancel a tender not subject to judicial scrutiny unless arbitrariness is evident. (Para 46)

(D) Compliance with Tender Process - Clause regarding bid validity observed; expired bids cannot sustain claims for award. (Para 41)

Facts of the case:
Four writ petitions challenged the cancellation of tender for irrigation projects in Assam. Issues focused on the authority of the Superintending Engineer to award contracts and the legality of the tender cancellation based on external directives from higher authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that neither the awarded contracts nor their cancellation were legally binding due to absence of proper communication or approval. The decision emphasized the absence of enforceable rights under the tender documents.

Issues: The main issues regarded the legality of the tender cancellation and whether the petitioner had a right to challenge it.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner held no enforceable right under the tendering process due to a lack of formal award notification and that administrative decisions surrounding tender processes could not be second-guessed unless clear malice or arbitrariness was demonstrated.

Result: All writ petitions dismissed, with directions for the tendering authority to issue a corrigendum and invite resubmission of tender with extended deadlines.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top