The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and transparent decision-making processes in accepting tenders and the need for clarity and legal certainty in tender norms and benchmarks.

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B.B. Hussain and Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, representing respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D.J. Boro, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the work-order no. JIST/TMC/2022/566 dated 26.06.2023, for hiring buses on contract basis, issued by the Principal, Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology, Jorhat (JIST for short) (respondent no.4) issued in favour of respondent no.5.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 2 (two) numbers of buses, which was provided on hire to the JIST upto 31.07.2023. On 28.03.2023, the respondent no.4 had issued notice inviting tender (NIT for short) for awarding contract for hiring of buses, with stipulation that the vehicles offered should not be older than more than 5 (five) years and should not have more than 30-35 seating capacity. The said NIT was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) 2283/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.05.2023 by directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to dispose of the representation dated 04.04.2023, submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tender Committee took a resolution dated 08.05.2023 to the effect that the age of the bus cannot be more than 3 (three) years.

4. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 had published a fresh NIT dated 11.05.2023, for hiring 2 (two) buses. Out of the various tender conditions, tender clause no. 1(a) was that the bidder should be registered as travel agent/registered handling agent under the Registration Act and as per tender clause no. 1(f), the supplier must have 1 (one) spare registered bus of similar capacity in his/ her name against which he is submitting the bid. The tender was awarded to the respondent no. 5 by issuing the impugned work-order dated 26.06.2023 to provide 2 (two) buses from 01.08.2023 for a period of 3 (three) years. The said award is challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that the contract was awarded in violation of tender clauses 1(a) and 1(f) respectively.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioner was made aware that deviation from tender condition was otherwise permissible, he too could have participated with some deviation of conditions of NIT. Thus, it was submitted that the acceptance of tender which did not conform to the clauses of NIT was bad and liable to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following two cases, being (i) Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 1: 2007 STPL 17685 SC, and (ii) Rabi Baruah v. N.F. Railway & Ors., 2024 (2) GLT 344.

6. The respondent no. 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and it was contended that the respondent no. 5 was accepted as a registered travel agent under Registration Act by the Scrutinizing Committee on the basis of GST Certificate issued by the Government of India, which registers him with a trade name of “Hiru Tours and Travel” with legal name as his own name and hence, the said certificate was accepted as registration/ trade licence is a pre-requisite for obtaining GST registration certificate. In respect of clause 1(f) of the tender conditions, the stand of the respondent no. 4 was that bidder must have two buses in his own name is understood to indicate that the bus may not be in his own name but in favour of his/her agency as the respondent no. 5 had applied as a travel agent only and therefore, power of attorney to the travel agency of respondent no. 5 is a legal way of using of the bus. It was also submitted that having not participated in the bidding process, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the award of tender in favour of the