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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Both these two writ petitions being connected to the same tender process and filed by rival parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The matter pertains to the settlement of the Beltola Bi-weekly Market under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the cases are narrated in brief.

2. The Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) had issued a tender notice dated 02.03.2023 inviting tender for the settlement of the Beltola Bi-weekly Market (hereinafter the market) for the year 2023–24 with effect from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. The estimated government value of the market was fixed at Rs. 1,03,41,540/-. Both the petitioners in these two petitions had submitted their respective bids. It may be mentioned that the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3388/2023 was the earlier settlement holder.

3. The bids were opened on 23.03.2023 wherein three numbers of bids were found. The bidder with the highest bid was however having major defects in his bid and was accordingly disqualified. So far as the bid of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 2088/2023 is concerned namely, Shri Dharmakanta Das who is the proprietor of M/S Ganapati enterprise, the amount offered by him was Rs. 1,25,15,000/- whereas the bid of Shri Fatik Das who is the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3388/2023 was Rs. 1,28,50,700/-. It however, appears that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Shri Fatik Das was short by Rs. 35/-. It was the term of the contract that the EMD was fixed at 10% of the offered value if the candidate belongs to the General Category and 5% if the candidate was of Schedule Caste category. It is not in dispute that Shri Fatik Das belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and therefore his Earnest Money Deposit was to be 5% of the bid offered.

4. It is the case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 2088/2023 i.e. Dharmakanta Das that it was his bid which was the only valid bid and therefore the settlement ought to have been made with him.

5. On the other hand, the case projected by Sri Fatik Das however is that while making the calculation of the EMD, there was an inadvertent mistake and the initial Demand Draft for the EMD was for an amount of Rs. 6,42,500/-. However, on realizing the mistake, on the same day itself i.e. 23.03.2023, another Demand Draft of Rs. 100/- was deposited. It is however not in dispute that the balance amount of Rs. 35/- which was deposited by a Demand Draft, though was after the stipulated time, it was on the same date.

6. It appears that since the matter was to be resolved, vide an order dated 01.04.2023, Fatik Das was given an extension by a month. As noted above, Fatik Das was the earlier lessee of the market. It is the case of Dharmakanta Das that since there was no response in the RTI application, WP (C) No. 2088/2023 was filed.

7. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2023 while issuing notice had directed that no fresh NIT should be issued and no extension should be given to Fatik Das for the month of April,2023. However, the petitioner in that case - Dharmakanta Das may be allowed to run the market or run the same themselves. Consequently, an order was passed on 13.04.2023 of cancellation of the entire process of the tender. The aforesaid order of cancellation as well as non-consideration of the bid is the subject matter of WP (C) No. 3388/2023 instituted by Shri Fatik Das.

8. I have heard Shri W.R. Medhi learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 2088/2023 whereas the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3388/2023 is represented by learned counsel, Shri K. Singha. The Department, namely, the Guwahati Development Department as well as the GMC is represented by its Standing Counsel Shri P. Nayak, who has also produced the records of the case.

9. Shri Medhi, the learned counsel for Dharmakanta Das has submitted that though the value of the bid is a relevant factor, such value is to be in