IMPORTANT POINT
Adherence to the prescribed format and requirements outlined in the bidding documents is crucial, and failure to comply with mandatory requirements can lead to the valid rejection of a technical bid.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that he responded to an E-Auction Notice dated 02.03.2023 floated by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia in respect of Item No. 3 i.e., N.KD-B-4 Khudnabari Mining Contract Area. The period of contract is for seven (7) years and the intending bidders are to deposit an earnest money of Rs. 20,51,000/-. According to the petitioner, although he submitted all the requisite materials that was required, his technical bid was rejected by the respondent authorities by giving five (5) grounds namely, (i) Provident Fund return not submitted (ii) Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) return not submitted (iii) Bakijai Certificate not submitted (iv) Bid document digitally not signed (v) Facts and affidavit not submitted as per the format. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the first ground of rejection of his technical bid, the petitioner had submitted a declaration to the effect that if the work is allotted to him, he would provide EPF & ESI within one (1) month. The learned counsel in this connection refers to Annexure-J at page no. 93 of the writ petition. He also submits that the respondent no. 5 also did not submit his ESIC returns but his technical bid was accepted. The learned counsel submits that in respect of the ground No. 3 for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner i.e., for not having submitted Bakijai Certificate, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner inadvertently did not submit the same although he had made a mention in the affidavit he submitted as per the prescribed format. He submits that the same otherwise cannot be the ground for rejecting his bid. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Md. Bahar Uddin –Vs- Assam Fisheries Corporation Ltd. & Others 2017 (3) GLR 783, Kapili Nadi Matshyajibi Samati Ltd. –Vs- State of Assam & Ors. 2019 (3) GLT 351 and Order dated 29.09.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 294/2011 (Abu Talib –Vs- Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.). The learned counsel in respect of the fourth ground of rejection that the bid letter not being digitally signed submits that the petitioner in fact signed the bid letter digitally but the annexed documents were signed by hand. He submits that if such discrepancy was found, the petitioner ought to have been given two (2) chances to upload and sign the bid document on or before the due date and time in terms of Clause 8A(b)(i) of the bid document. However, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel further submits that in respect of the fifth ground of rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid that he did not submit facts and the affidavit was not as per the format is not correct in view of the fact that the petitioner had indeed submitted the required facts in the form of an affidavit. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to page Nos. 94-98 of the writ petition and submits that all the requirements and essentials have been stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Referring to the comparative statement dated 04.05.2023, the learned counsel submits that out of the total eight (8) bidders, the respondent Nos. 5 and another bidder were found qualified in the technical bid while the remaining bids were rejected. He submits that the other bidder whose technical bid was accepted only appears to be a proxy bidder and that the respondent No. 5 seems to be the blue eyed boy shown favouritism. The reason for rejection of the technical bid of the bidders amongst others was mainly because of