IMPORTANT POINT
Tender conditions must be interpreted harmoniously, and disqualification based on ambiguous requirements is arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mrs. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee should be set aside, as there is no infirmity in the technical bid submitted by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the State respondents had issued a Notice Inviting Bid dated 20.12.2023, for grant of IMFL Retail Off Licence for various places in Lakhimpur district, including Shop No. LKP 13 at C.D Road, Lakhimpur. As there were no participants for the said tender notice, the same was cancelled and a subsequent Notice Inviting E-Bid dated 23.02.2024 (NIT in short) was issued by the respondents. However, the petitioner’s technical bid was disqualified on two grounds, i.e., (1) The site plan was not countersigned by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (B) and (2) Point 22.3 of the NIT had been violated.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the Notice Inviting E-Bid (NIT) dated 23.02.2024 (Page 56 of the writ petition), the details were to be submitted by referring to “the previous bid document” and as per the revised timeline given in the chart, i.e., the documents were required to be submitted in terms of the earlier tender notice dated 20.12.2023. The documents to be submitted as per the previous bid documents is reflected in Annexure-C of the NIT. Further, the documents to be submitted along with the technical bid were reflected in the “Documents to be submitted along with technical bid”, hereinafter referred to as the “List of documents.” Serial No. 18 of the “List of documents” states as follows:

“18. Annexure C, D and E.”

4. Annexure-C of the NIT is the “Checklist of Bidder Eligibility Criteria in Technical Bid” and is divided into 7 columns. Column 2 speaks of “Basic Requirement” and Column 3 speaks of “Specific Requirement.” Column 2 & 3 of Serial No. 12 states as follows:

5. There is nothing stated in Column Nos. 2 & 3 of Serial No. 12 that any particular grade/cadre of engineer is to certify the site plan. However, Serial No. 22 of the “List of documents” states that the site plan is to be signed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. As there was no bar for any Engineer to sign the site plan, in terms of the earlier tender notice dated 20.12.2023 and Annexure-C, the petitioner had submitted the site plan signed by an Assistant Engineer (in short ‘AE’) and not by an Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the site plan submitted by the petitioner being certified by an Assistant Engineer, the petitioner’s technical bid could not have been disqualified, on the ground that site plan had not been signed by an Assistant Executive Engineer, as was required under Serial No. 22 of the “List of Documents.”

6. Clause 22.3 of the bid document states that no Bidder shall contact any member of the Tender/Bid Committee on any matter related to the bid, from the time of the opening of bids to the time of issue of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA). Any effort from the part of a Bidder to Influence the Tender/Bid Committee in its decision in respect of bid evaluation, bid comparison or issue of the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) would result in the rejection of the bid and forfeiture of the earnest money deposit (EMD). During the bid preparation process, bidders will focus their inquiries and communications, if any, only to the authorized nodal officer of the District Commissioner. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner did not meet any member of the Bid Committee to influence the outcome of his tender documents.

7. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Excise Department, on the other hand, submits that while the bid documents in relat