Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Prasanta Gogoi, S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No.1496/2024 and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.1384/2024 and WP(C) No.1385/2024. Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned standing counsel appears on behalf of the Excise Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondents in WP(C) No.1385/2024 and WP(C) No.1496/2024 as well as Mr. N. Deka, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondent in WP(C) No.1384/2024.
2. All the three writ petitions are taken up together taking into account that the issues involved in the writ petitions, i.e. WP(C) No.1384/2024 and WP(C) No.1385/2024 are similar and the issue involved in WP(C) No.1385/2024 is interconnected with WP(C) No.1496/2024.
3. The material facts which arise for consideration is that a Notice Inviting E-Bids was issued on 29.11.2023 by the District Collector, Tinsukia District thereby inviting shop-wise electronic bids (E-Bids) for grant of Indian
The court established that fairness and transparency in the bidding process are essential, and any rejection of bids must be based on the criteria set forth in the bid documents.
Non-compliance with tender submission requirements, including necessary documentation and signatures, justifies the rejection of a technical bid regardless of prior acceptance.
Medium enterprises are not entitled to Earnest Money Deposit exemption under government rules, highlighting the necessity for proper MSME classification in tender processes.
Judicial review of tender processes is constrained; courts should not interfere unless decisions are arbitrary or favor a specific party, respecting the employer’s evaluation within the scope of rele....
Rule 23(16)(iv) of Assam Public Procurement Act, 2020 is reproduced Bidders securing specified minimum percent of marks or having fulfilled specific minimum achievement norms as fixed may be consider....
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.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
Court ruled the rejection of a technical bid for using an authorized dealer's DSC was arbitrary as eligibility conditions were met, emphasizing fair competition in tender processes.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The rejection of technical bids based on arbitrary grounds was unjustified, necessitating a fresh tender process due to the flawed evaluation and lack of two qualified bidders.
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
