IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Prasanta Gogoi, S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 1384 OF 2024
Decided on : 24-09-2024
Licensing - IMFL Retail Licenses - Assam Excise Rules 2016 - Rule 114A - The court found the rejection of technical bids arbitrary and unreasonable, emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency in the bidding process as mandated by the statutory rules.
Fact of the Case:
Three writ petitions were filed concerning the rejection of technical bids for IMFL retail licenses in Tinsukia District, Assam, after initial acceptance by the Technical Bid Committee. The rejection was based on alleged deficiencies in documentation, leading to claims of unfairness and arbitrariness.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the rejection of the petitioners' bids was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the reasons for rejection were not part of the original bid requirements, violating principles of fairness and transparency.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the technical bids of the petitioners was arbitrary and whether the private respondents met the eligibility criteria as per the bid documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once bidders are declared technically qualified, they have a right to be considered for financial bids, and any subsequent rejection must be justified and fair, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Result: The court set aside the rejection of the petitioners' bids and the acceptance of the private respondents' bids, directing fresh settlement procedures.
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 Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Retail ‘Off’ Licenses in the district of Tinsukia at the locations mentioned in the list of shops contained in the E-Bid document.
4. At this stage, it is very pertinent to mention that the bid documents in its draft form was addressed to the District Collector, Tinsukia by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam vide the communication dated 18.09.2023 with the direction that the required data may be filled pertaining to the district after finalization of the Date-Sheet as provided at Page No.7 of the draft bid documents. In pursuance thereto, the bid document was published in the website https://assamtenders.gov.in. In the said bid documents, there are various conditions stipulated. Clause 2 of the said bid document stipulates the eligibility required for participation in the bidding. The relevant portion of Clause-2 is extracted below:-
An individual, a partnership firm, a limited liability partnership (LLP) or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactments who has proof of filing Income Tax Returns-for the three financial years out of the last four financial years (2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23) duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, is eligible to participate in the bid.”
5. From a perusal of the above extracted portion of the Clause-2, it would be seen that an individual, a partnership firm, a limited liability partnership (LLP) or a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactment who has proof of filing Income Tax Returns for the three financial years, out of the last four financial years, i.e. 2019-20; 2020-21; 2021-22 and 2022-23 duly certified by a Chartered Accountant is eligible to participate in the bid. The effect of the above extracted portion of Clause 2 of the bid document would be seen in Clause 6 which stipulates what the technical bid should consist of. Amongst the various documents which have been enlisted, one of such document is “copy of Income Tax Returns along with Balance Sheets for the year 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 (any three years in sequence) and the statement of ‘net worth’ as certified by a Chartered Accountant”. Therefore, it would be seen that the requirement of the said documents has a direct correlation with the eligibility criteria. In addition to that, it is also very relevant to mention that amongst the very other documents as mandated in Clause 6 of the tender documents, the bidder has also to submit a duly filled up Application Form as per Annexure-A.
6. A perusal of the Annexure-A would show that various details are required to be filled in. Clause 12 of Annexure-A stipulates filing in details of bank account(s) and proof to be submitted In the said
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.