Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 153
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Rama K Gupta And Company - Appellant
Versus
The Panchayat And Rural Development Deptt And 2 Ors - Respondent
WA 285 / 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2025
For the Petitioner: N GAUTAM, MS N MAHANTA,MR. R M DEKA,MR. K N CHOUDHURY
For the Respondent: SC, P AND R.D., MS K SARMA(R-3),MS K BHATTACHARYYA(R-3),MR H K SARMA(R-3),MR M SAHEWALLA(R-3),MR G N SAHEWALLA (R-3)
IMPORTANT POINT
Tender conditions must be strictly followed; failure to comply renders bids non-responsive, and debriefing processes must be adhered to by bidders.
Headnote:
(A) Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 25.01.2024 - Minimum consultancy fee of Rs. 16,00,000/- (excluding taxes) for financial audit services and post audit support - Appellant's bid was rejected for not meeting minimum fee requirement due to submission errors in the Government e-Market (GeM) Portal. (Paras 9 , 10 , 12 , 17 , 41 )
(B) Compliance with tender conditions - The court emphasized that tender conditions must be strictly followed, as non-compliance renders bids non-responsive. (Paras 13 , 15 , 42 )
(C) Debriefing process - The court ruled that the debriefing process must be adhered to, but the appellant's failure to attend the scheduled meeting negated their claims. (Paras 24 , 46 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant submitted a bid for conducting statutory audit services but was disqualified for quoting a price below the minimum stipulated fee due to a misunderstanding of the bidding process in the GeM Portal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities had complied with the necessary tender provisions and that the appellant's bid was rightly rejected.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant's bid was compliant with the RFP requirements and whether the debriefing process was properly followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that strict adherence to tender conditions is essential and that failure to comply with the debriefing process undermines a bidder's claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. M. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2; and Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted, assailing the judgment & order, dated 05.08.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3519/2024, instituted by the appellant.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:
The respondent No. 2 Society, had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP), dated 25.01.2024, for submission of a proposal for conducting statutory audit of the Assam State Rural Livelihoods Mission Society for the financial year 2023-2024.
In terms of the Request for Proposal(RFP); the estimated bid value was stipulated as Rs. 16,00,000/-(excluding taxes). The appellant, herein, submitted its bid in pursuance of the said Request for Proposal(RFP) on 12.02.2024. The technical bid of the bidders were scrutinized by the constituted committee on 07.06.2024. On such scrutiny; it was found that out of 14 bidders who had submitted their respective bids in pursuance of the Request for Proposal(RFP), dated 25.01.2024; 4(four) bidders including the appellant, herein, and the respondent No. 3, herein, were found to be responsive. Thereafter, the financial bids of the qualified bidders were opened on 10.06.2024. Considering the bid price so quoted; the appellant Firm was denoted as the lowest bidder i.e. L1. However, a query came to be raised by the authorities of the respondent No. 2 on 15.06.2024, to the appellant, herein, to provide justification for quoting lesser price than the minimum prescribed consultancy fee in the tender document. In response to the said query posed by the respondent No. 2; the appellant submitted its justification in the matter.
The appellant, in its justification, had contended that in the Request for Proposal(RFP), dated 25.01.2024; the minimum consultancy fee so prescribed was Rs. 16,00,000/-(excluding taxes) and it was not stipulated in the said Request for Proposal(RFP), that post audit support fee was also required to be separately quoted. It was projected that the appellant had quoted consultancy fee of Rs. 16,00,000/-(excluding taxes) plus 18% GST, as its bid price for the entire assignment in the financial bid. However, in the Government e-Market(GeM) Portal, the price for the consultancy part and the post audit support was required to be quoted separately. The portal not having accepted “0” amount as the post audit support fee; the appellant, herein, bifurcated the bid price quoted by it, into consultancy fee and put a nominal amount in the post audit support fee column assuming that post audit support fee was also a part of the total assignment.
It is seen that the said clarification of the appellant, herein, was further considered and on such consideration; it having been found that the appellant had quoted an amount below the floor price stipulated in the Request for Proposal (RFP), dated 25.01.2024; the Technical and Evaluation Committee, re-examined the financial proposals submitted by all the 4(four) qualified bidders and the financial bid submitted by the appellant having been found to be below the floor price so prescribed in the said Request for Proposal(RFP) and the other bidders in the fray, having so quoted their prices by adhering to the minimum financial audit services fee; the financial proposal of the appellant, herein, was rejected by holding it to be disqualified in the financial proposal segment.
On the disqualification of the appellant, herein, so occasioning for the reason mentioned-above; the respondent No. 2 offered for awarding the contract,
