Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Janardan Kalita S/o Bipin Chandra Kalita – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 6 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 4524 of 2023
Decided on : 21-11-2023
Tender Settlement - Mazbat Weekly Open Market - Clause 8, Clause 11 - The court analyzed the terms and conditions of the tender notice, specifically Clause 8 and Clause 11, which stipulated the necessary documents for settlement and the procedure for making settlement with the highest bidder. The court found that the Petitioner had submitted all required documents and was the highest bidder, yet the settlement was made in favor of the second highest bidder without recording any reasons, rendering the settlement illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the settlement of Mazbat Weekly Open Market in favor of the second highest bidder and sought a direction to settle the market with the Petitioner. The Petitioner had participated in the tender process, submitted the required documents, and quoted a higher amount than the second highest bidder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement in favor of the second highest bidder was illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest due to the lack of reasons recorded for denying the Petitioner the contract and awarding it to the second highest bidder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the settlement of the market in favor of the second highest bidder, despite the Petitioner being the highest bidder and having submitted all required documents, was legal and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement in favor of the second highest bidder without recording any reasons was illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest. The court also directed the Respondent Authorities to settle the market in favor of the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner depositing the proportionate amount for the remaining period.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the settlement in favor of the second highest bidder and directed the Respondent Authorities to settle the market in favor of the Petitioner, provided the Petitioner deposited the proportionate amount for the remaining period within 10 days.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 7 who was the second highest bidder in respect to Mazbat Weekly Open Market and also for a direction upon the Respondents to settle the Mazbat Weekly Open Market with the Petitioner for the year 2023-24. From a perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the Joint Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar had invited bids vide a tender notice bearing Memo No.CHD/Market-01/2020/Pt-I/98-(A) dated 20.05.2023 for settlement of Mazbat Weekly Open Market alongwith other Markets/Go-Hats/Parking /Parghat/Fisheries/Cattle Pounds for the year 2023-24 under the Mazbat Development Block, Udalguri thereby fixing 17.06.2023 as the last date for submission of the bids. The Petitioner alongwith other bidders duly participated pursuant to the said tender process.
2. It appears from the comparative statement enclosed as Annexure-II to the writ petition that the Petitioner alongwith the Respondent No. 7 and one Amor Brahma had submitted the tender in respect to the Mazbat Weekly Open Market.
3. It further reveals that the Petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.6,52,790/-vide a Demand Draft dated 16.06.2023 whereas the Respondent No. 7 had deposited Rs. 4,90,000/-vide a Demand Draft of the same date. It is also seen from the comparative statement that the said Shri Amor Brahma did not submit any deposit.
4. It further reveals that pursuant to the said comparative statement prepared, the Mazbat Weekly Open Market was settled with the Respondent No.7 at the settlement rate of Rs.4,90,000/-for the year 2023-24 w.e.f. 1st July, 2023 to 30th of June, 2024 as informed vide the Communication dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Block Development Officer, Mazbat Development Circle. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the settlement of the Mazbat Weekly Open Market in favour of the Respondent No. 7 who was the second highest bidder and for not settling the said Mazbat Weekly Open Market in favour of the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
5. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it is relevant to take note of some of the terms and conditions of the said Notice Inviting Tender taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Clause-8 of the said Notice Inviting Tender stipulates that the tenderer shall attach to the tender the various documents. The said Clause 8 for the sake of convenience is quoted hereinunder :
“8. The tender shall attach the tender with the following documents. :-
(a) Bank Draft of the value of the offered rate in terms of Clause 5.
(b) Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy.
(c) Land Revenue Clearance Certificate,
(d) ST/SC Caste Certificate.
(e) Land Valuation Certificate against the mortgage property.
(f) GST Clearance, if applicable. (g) Non Incumbency Certificate.
(h) Pan/Aaadhar Card
(i) 2 (two) copies of the passport photo of the tenderer.
(h) Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer.”
6. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Clause 11 of the said Tender Notice which stipulates that the competent authority shall make the settlement with the highest bidder if all the necessary documents and the Government revenue are found in order. It was further stipulated that in case the settlement is not made with the highest bidder, the competent authority shall record reasons in writing for their decision. Further to that, Clause 11 stipulates that the competent authority before awarding the settlement shall make necessary enquiry keeping in mind the genuiness, eligibility and seriousness of the parties.
7. In the backdrop of the said Clause 8, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that in the comparative statement of the rates prepared in respect to the tenderers, it reveals that the Petitioner did not submit the SC/ST caste certificate, the clearance certificate as regards the income tax, bank, Samabai
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that settlement of a tender must be made in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender notice, and any deviation without vali....
Fairness demanded that the tendering authority should have disclosed to all the tenderers beforehand that the bid value above a particular amount or above a particular percentage of the scheduled rat....
Point of Law : When a bidder gets an order by suppression or concealment of material facts and the tendering authority despite having knowledge of the fact that the bidder has adopted a practice whic....
The authorities have the discretion to re-tender in case of a single bid and to condone minor defects in bids to protect public interest.
Point of Law : Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not and it is only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelm....
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
