The decision-making process of the tendering authority should be respected unless there is mala fide or perversity, and the court should only interfere in tender matters in furtherance of public interest.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for private respondent no.5.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Letter of Intent (LoI for short) and consequential Work Order dated 01.12.2021, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division (hereinafter referred to as ‘DFO’ for short) (respondent no.4) in favour of the private respondent no. 5. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner as technically qualified for participation in the second stage of auction along with other technically qualified bidders.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the “Likabali Sand and Gravel Mahal Contract Area” (hereinafter referred to as “Likabali Mahal” for brevity under Dhemaji Forest Division was put for on-line sale vide e-Auction notice dated 21.06.2021. The bid was a two stage bid, and only the technically qualified and approved bidder in the first round of tender evaluation could participate in the on-line bidding process. The petitioner had submitted his on-line bid with earnest money along with all requisite documents, offering bid amount of Rs.4,45,00,511/- (Rupees Four crore forty five lakh five hundred eleven only). However, the petitioner was not invited for the second stage of on-line bidding. It is alleged that the status of the petitioner was not disclosed in the on-line bidding portal and therefore, the petitioner had submitted a RTI application dated 09.09.2021, demanding certain documents. As the information was not furnished, the petitioner had preferred an RTI appeal, which was allowed by order dated 08.10.2021 and accordingly, some of the documents were provided by the State Public Information Officer (SPIO for short) on 12.11.2021. The petitioner had procured a copy of the work order issued by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the respondent no. 5 for a bid amount of Rs.1,13,00,000/- (Rupees one crore thirteen lakh only). Thus, in this writ petition, it is projected that the respondent no. 4 and other respondent authorities had prevented the petitioner from getting access to the relevant bidding documents, comparative statement, etc. In the meanwhile, the Likabali Mahal was settled with the respondent no. 4, which has caused financial loss of Rs.3,33,00,511/- (Rupees three crore thirty three lakh five hundred fifty one only) to the State exchequer.

4. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents are referred to hereinafter.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Limited, (2022) 6 SCC 401, and Star Enterprises & Ors. v. City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 280.

6. Having heard the submissions from all sides, the point of determination which arises in this writ petition are as follows:-

i. Whether the rejection of the tender of the petitioner during technical evaluation was justified merely because the affidavit submitted by the petitioner with her tender was not in the format given in the tender document?

ii. Whether the rejection of the tender of the petitioner during technical evaluation was justified merely because the “Likabali Sand and Gravel Mahal Contract Area” was mentioned as “Likabali Quarry” in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner with her bid?

iii. Whether on the ground that by technically disqualifying the petitioner, the State exchequer would suffer financial loss to the extent of Rs.3,33,00,511/- (Rupees three crore thirty three lakh five hundred fifty one only, the techni