IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the rejection of the bid based on objective criteria and found that a land dispute filed after the decision-making process could not affect the eligibility of the successful bidder.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri J. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P. Bharadwaj, learned Standing Counsel, IOC who has also produced the records. The respondent no. 6 is represented by Shri T. J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. P. P. Das, learned counsel.

2. The subject matter of challenge is a communication dated 15.12.2017 whereby the application of the petitioner made towards an invitation to offer by the IOCL for allotment of a retail outlet at Jorhat has been rejected. The facts may be briefly narrated as follows.

3. The IOCL had published an NIT on 11.07.2012 for allotment of retail outlets in various locations including the location of Moubandha to Pulibar in the district of Jorhat against Sl. No. 49. According to the petitioner, he being eligible, had applied for the aforesaid allotment vide an application dated 23.08.2012. Pursuant thereto, a Call Letter was issued to the petitioner on 12.12.2012 fixing the date of interview on 27.12.2012 at 12:00 noon in the office of the respondent at Tinsukia in which the petitioner had appeared. Since there was no response for a long time, on 19.12.2014, the petitioner had issued a communication to the respondent authorities to know the status of the evaluation. However, long after about 5 years, the impugned communication dated 15.12.2017 has been issued, as per which the application of the petitioner was informed to have been rejected. The principal reason cited for rejection was that the petitioner was not found eligible on the parameter “capability to arrange finance”. Immediately on receipt of the letter, the petitioner had filed a representation on 22.12.2017 whereby it was informed to the authorities that the reasons cited were not correct and he was financially sound. However, the petitioner came to know later on on 22.12.2017 that the LOI was issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 without considering his case.

4. Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons cited in the impugned letter dated 15.12.2017 are unsustainable in law and has been done without any application of mind. Attention of this Court has been drawn to certain annexures including communication by the bank, as per which it is claimed that the financial health of the petitioner was sound and he was in a capacity to run the business, if allotted to him. The petitioner had also procured certain information and documents by taking aid of the Right to Information Act.

5. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent IOCL dated 12.06.2018, Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears from the Note-sheet dated 24.12.2014 that at the first instance, all the documents and credentials of the petitioner were accepted and he was, in fact evaluated as the first nominee. However, there was a second evaluation on 19.10.2016 as per which, not only marks which were earlier allotted to the petitioner under certain Heads have been reduced, the respondent no. 6 have been given marks under certain Heads which were otherwise not entitled to by him. Shri Singh, learned counsel by referring to the second evaluation documents dated 19.10.2016 has submitted that though the respondent no. 6 has been given more marks under the Heading ‘land’, the ownership of such land is disputed and there are also cases pending in the appropriate Court. He accordingly submits that while the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is unsustainable, the selection of the bid of the respondent no. 6 is also not in accordance with law and therefore there is a requirement of interference by this Court. It is specifically submitted that the NIT in question contains a specific clause being Clause 14 whereby preference would be given to applicants who would offer suitable land which would include family land. However, the said condition is accompanied by a caveat that if the land is a family land, the other co-owners would have to give necessary no