Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE, J.
Tolum Tapam, S/o. Tolum Sopin & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 171, 178 of 2024
Decided On : 14-06-2024
PMGSY - Tender Violation - PMGSY Scheme Clauses 6.12, 6.13 - The court discussed the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines, particularly clauses 6.12 and 6.13, which mandate that land availability must be certified before project proposals are submitted. The court found that the required procedures, including transect walks and land donation agreements, were not properly followed, influencing its decision to stay the tender process until grievances were addressed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, landowners in Kurung Kumey District, challenged a tender issued for road construction under the PMGSY, claiming it violated the scheme's guidelines regarding land availability and documentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the necessary procedures outlined in the PMGSY guidelines were not adhered to, particularly regarding the timing of land donation agreements and the preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR).
Issues: Whether the tender process for road construction under the PMGSY was valid given the alleged non-compliance with the scheme's guidelines regarding land availability and documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if a statute prescribes a specific method for an act, it must be followed strictly. The failure to comply with the PMGSY guidelines regarding land availability and the preparation of the DPR invalidated the tender process.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation regarding their grievances, which the authorities must consider, while staying the impugned tender until the representation is resolved.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the Rural Works Department (RWD) appearing for the State respondents and Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors in WP(C)171(AP)2024.
2. As the issues involved in these two writ petitions are similar, the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. By instituting these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the impugned tender, E-Procurement Press Notice, dated 13.03.2024, issued by the Executive Engineer/DPIU, Laaying Yangte Division, ARRDA, RWD, Kurung Kumey District, inviting item rate bids in electronic tendering system for construction of roads under PMGSY including their maintenance for five years from the eligible contractors registered in appropriate class in the District of Kurung Kumey for 26 (twenty six) number of packages, on the ground that the impugned tender has been issued in violation of the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines.
4. The case of the petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is that they are the land owners of different blocks within the District of Kurung Kumey. The lands are their ancestral lands in their respective villages.
5. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Border Management, vide letter dated 09.01.2024, has accorded approval and sanctioned the project proposals submitted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh for an amount of Rs.2205.19 crores for construction of roads under PMGSY under Vibrant Villages Programme. Out of total 105 road projects for state of Arunachal Pradesh, 27 roads are approved for Kurung Kumey District and the petitioners are concerned about 26 (twenty-six) packages.
6. The Executive Engineer/DPIU, Laaying Yangte Division, ARRDA, RWD, Kurung Kumey District, issued the impugned E-Procurement Press Notice, dated 13.03.2024, inviting item rate bids in electronic tendering system for construction of roads under PMGSY including their maintenance for five years from the eligible contractors registered in appropriate class in the District of Kurung Kumey for 26 (twenty six) number of packages. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned Tender as the same has been issued without following the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines.
7. The grievances raised in the present proceedings is that the respondent authorities have prepared the DPR without adhering to the guidelines and allegedly shown to have obtained the Land donation from some persons which includes the lands of the petitioners. The PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines mandates that it is the responsibility of the State Government and the District Panchayat to ensure that lands are available for taking up the road projects under the Vibrant Villages Programme under PMGSY scheme and a certificate that the land is so available must accompany the proposal for each road work. The transect walk must be conducted. The respondent authorities have failed to follow the requirements before the project of road constructions are taken up. The petitioners have submitted various representations before the authorities. However, same have not been considered.
8. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines, particularly, Clause-6.12 and 6.13, submits that it is the responsibility of the State Government/District Panchayat to ensure that the lands are available for taking up the proposed road works. A certificate that the land is available must accompany the proposal for each road work. Though the PMGSY does not provide funds for land acquisition, it does not mean that the acquisition cannot be done by the State Government at its own cost. The State Government is also given liberty to lay down guidelines for voluntary donation, exchange or other mechanisms to ensure availability of land. Clause-6.13, amongst others, provides that as a part of PMGSY process, it may include a s
The PMGSY guidelines require strict adherence to procedures for land availability and project documentation, and failure to comply can invalidate tender processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory provisions for land acquisition and transect walk under the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines must be strictly followed, and non-compl....
Point of Law : Unless arbitrariness or mala fide on part of the tendering authority is alleged, expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to....
The authority of the tendering agency to interpret tender documents and the need to balance attracting competent contractors with nurturing small contractors.
Only the financial turnover of the specific bidder is to be considered for contract eligibility under the Standard Bidding Documents.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
The importance of full and fair disclosure of all material facts when invoking the court's jurisdiction, and the consequences of suppressing material facts in a writ petition.
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
