IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility criteria in tenders must be reasonable and serve public interest, and courts will not interfere unless proven arbitrary or malicious.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present proceeding have presented a challenge to a NIT dated 06.03.2024, issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, more particularly, to the tender conditions at Clause 4 & 44 of the “Additional Terms and Conditions” of the said NIT to the extent that the said clauses has the effect of excluding the petitioners from the said tender process.

3. The petitioners, herein, have projected that they are presently supplying dietary articles under various groups to Central Jail, Silchar; District Jails, Hailakandi & Karimganj and Sub-Jail, Haflong since the last two years on the contracts for effecting such supplies being settled with them. It is the contention of the petitioners that during the earlier years, the tenders for supply of dietary articles were being so issued by the authorities of the respective jails. However, by effecting a change in the policy, the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, proceeded to issue an NIT dated 06.03.2024; by amalgamating six prisons i.e., Central Jail, Silchar; District Jails, Hailakandi & Karimganj and the Sub-Jail, Haflong into one zone i.e., Zone-6. The supply of dietary articles for the inmates of the said jails were divided into various groups i.e., Group-A, B, C, D & E. The said NIT under the Additional Terms and Conditions, in Clause-4 by assigning values against each of the Groups involved has mandated that the intending bidder must have minimum Average Annual Turnover for the last three years, equal to the value as assigned for each of the groups involved, along with the stipulation that the bidder should also furnish turnover from similar nature of business certified by the C.A., which should be atleast be 30% of the total turnover. Further, under Clause-44 of the Additional Terms and Conditions of the said NIT, it was stipulated that the tenderer should have minimum three years experience of supply of the quoted items to any Central/State Govt. Organization/PSU/Public Listed Company.

4. The petitioners have contended that the estimation of the value against each of the groups as made in Clause-4 is excessive and not in consonance with the total quantity of the dietary articles required to be supplied against each of the individual groups. Further, the petitioners have contended that the stipulations so made in Clause 44 would have the effect of restraining the petitioners, herein, from submitting their bids, inasmuch as, most of them had not fulfilled the minimum criteria of three years of experience of supply of quoted items to the organizations so mentioned in the clause. The petitioners, by contending that they being the present contractors supplying the dietary articles to the jails involved, the provisions of Clause-4 & 44 of the Additional Terms and Conditions of the NIT dated 06.03.2024; were so incorporated so as to oust them from the purview of the said tender process. The petitioners having been rendered ineligible to submit their bids in pursuance to the NIT dated 06.03.2024, have by way of instituting the present proceeding, assailed the provisions of the said NIT.

5. Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the fact that the petitioners, herein, were awarded with the contract for supply of dietary articles to the jails now forming part of Zone-6 in the NIT dated 06.03.2024, atleast for the last two years i.e., 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, have acquired the requisite experience for effecting of such supplies. Mr. Purkayastha has further submitted that there exists no allegation against the present petitioners of having failed to supply the dietary articles of the groups so involved, contract for which were so awarded to them for the above noted years.

6. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has further sub