IMPORTANT POINT
Tender evaluation requires strict adherence to essential qualification criteria, and failure to comply justifies rejection of bids without infringing rights under Article 14.

JUDEMGNT :

KARDAK ETE , J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for all the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner has put to challenge the tender summary report dated 07.01.2025, by which, the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on having found to be non-responsive, pertaining to the Notice Inviting e-Tender (herein after referred to as NIeT in short) dated 25.11.2024 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam inviting bids for supply of Dietary items i.e. Group A,B,C and D, required for the jails of the State of Assam covered under Zone-4.

3. Having considered the issue raised in the present proceedings, although one Tharad Trading Company represented by its Proprietor- Shri Amit Kumar Tharad, Barpeta Road, District Barpeta, Assam, is arrayed as respondent No.3 and no notice has been issued to him, the present petition is being taken up for final disposal as the matter relates to supply of dietary items for the jails of the State of Assam, as no prejudice would cause to the respondent No. 3.

4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s Brahmaputra Goat Supply, a firm registered in the year 2021 and has been running the business of selling the dietary articles including fish, meat and eggs. The Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, issued NIeT vide dated 25.11.2024 in two bids system inviting bids from the interested Suppliers/ Dealers/Firms for supply of Dietary items i.e. Group-A, B, C, D required for the Jails of Assam covered under Zone-4 for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner being the eligible and qualified Supplier, in response to the aforesaid NIeT submitted his technical bid and price bid along with all the requisite documents through online mode in the name of his firm, i.e. M/s Brahmaputra Goat Supply, the acknowledgment notice of which was issued to the petitioner showing its successful submission of bids. Thereafter, on 09.02.2024, the petitioner submitted hard copies along with all original documents before the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam.

5. The petitioner contends that while awaiting for selection in the said NIeT having been successfully submitted his bid along with required documents, he checked up the status of the bidding, on which it is found that the respondent authorities have uploaded the tender summary report on 07.01.2025 showing participation of four bidders including the petitioner. By the impugned summary report dated 07.01.2025, surprisingly, the bid of the petitioner is shown to be rejected on the ground of technical bid not qualified whereas, the bid of the respondent no.3 is found technically qualified. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed representation dated 16.01.2025 before the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, and made a request to reconsider the technical bid of the petitioner. However, the same has not been considered, despite several approaches.

6. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as per the ITB, particularly para 2.11.1, and after successful submission, the acknowledgment receipt was also issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner successfully submitted his bid and the same was received by the authorities. However, without assigning any valid reasons, the respondent authorities have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner and as such rejection is arbitrary and unreasonable and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid NIeT, especially for Group-D articles, the four numbers of bidders including the petitioner's firm have submitted their bids. The name of the firm of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1, whereas, the respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No.4. He sub