Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Amran Hussain Laskar, S/o Late Samar Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam Represented by The Principal Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside and not give effect to Clause 10 of the Tender Notice for 2023-2024 dated 29.04.2024, wherein it has been provided that the tender for all Bazaars/Ghats/Min Mahals/Pounds offering highest bid price will be considered for settlement. It further states that if the tenderer offering the highest bid price does not enclose the relevant papers and documents (except Court Fee and Earnest Money), he/she will be given a period of 3 (three) days for submission of such papers and documents. If he/she fails to submit the papers and documents within the specified period of three days, his/her tender will be cancelled and his/her Earnest money will be forfeited and the next highest bidder shall be considered for settlement within the said terms and conditions.
3. The petitioner took part in the selection process for settlement of the Balisatra Bi-weekly Market (fort short “Market”) issued by the Batadrava Ancdhalik Panchayat, in pursuance to the NIT date
A party cannot challenge the validity of a clause in the middle of the selection proceedings if they did not challenge it earlier.
Failure to challenge a clause in the tender notice during the selection process precludes a party from challenging it later.
The highest valid bidder should be considered for settlement, and acceptance of a tender other than the highest valid tenderer requires prior and formal approval of the government. The competitive bi....
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....
The court ruled that no lowest rate for bids is mandated by applicable rules, allowing a tender to be settled below the three-year average.
The authority of the State respondents to insert additional grounds for forfeiture of earnest money in the NIT to ensure genuine bids in government contracts.
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.
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....
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
