The rejection of bids must be based on valid reasons and must not be arbitrary or mala fide. Court orders must be adhered to, and decisions must be in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Both these writ petitions being connected and an analogous hearing being conducted, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. While the petitioner who is the same in both the writ petitions have filed the first writ petition- WP(C)/5728/21 against a Speaking Order dated 03.09.2021 by which the representation of the petitioner pertaining to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 11.06.2021 has been rejected and her technical bid has been held to be non responsive, the second writ petition-WP(C)/1609/2022 has been filed challenging an Work Order dated 01.12.2021 in favour of the respondent no.5. However, before going to the issue involved, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

2. The Forest Department had issued an Auction Notice dated 11.06.2021 for settlement of the “Simen Sand & Gravel Mining Concession Area” in the district of Dhemaji for a period of five years (hereinafter Mahal). The petitioner, who claims to be eligible in all respects had participated in the bidding process along with eight other bidders including the respondent no.5. In the technical evaluation, the bids of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 were held to be responsive along with those of few others. It is the case of the petitioner that while her offer was Rs.3,21,00,511/–, that of the respondent no. 5 was Rs.1,06,50,000/–. Since no positive steps were taken for settling the Mahal in favour of the petitioner, she had approached the authorities which vide a Speaking Order dated 03.09.2021 had rejected the bid of the petitioner. The endeavour of the petitioner to procure the details of the impugned action by taking recourse to the Right to Information Act having been failed, the petitioner had filed the first writ petition WP(C)/ 5728/2021.

3. This Court vide order dated 02.11.2021 while issuing notice of motion, had passed an interim order.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such interim order passed by this Court, a Work Order dated 01.12.2021 was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 in spite of the clear direction of this Court. The petitioner had accordingly filed the second writ petition, WP(C)/1609/2022.

5. This Court in the aforesaid WP(C)/1609/2022 vide order dated 07.03.2022 while issuing notice of motion had passed an interim order of stay. This Court had also made many other observations and passed directions which would be discussed later in this judgment.

6. I have heard Shri T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department and Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

7. Shri Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bids received from the various bidders were scrutinized by a Three Member Technical Evaluation Committee in which the technical bid of the petitioner was found responsive. In view of the same, the impugned Speaking Order dated 03.09.2021 could not have been subsequently passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji (hereinafter DFO) rejecting the bid of the petitioner on technical responsiveness. It is submitted that during the proceedings in this Court, the petitioner could know that the impugned Speaking Order was passed on certain complaints lodged by persons who are stranger to the proceedings. It is submitted that it also reveals that the reason for passing the impugned order was that the stamp paper of Court Fee was not crossed and the affidavit accompanying the bid was not digitally signed and both these aspects were factually erroneous. It is submitted that the impugned action is bad in law as the same was taken without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also submitted that copies of such complaints were not given to the petitioner and action was taken adverse to her interest.

8. By referring to the additional affidavit of the resp