Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Rama K Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Panchayat And Rural Development Deptt – Respondent
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(R
Tender conditions must be strictly followed; failure to comply renders bids non-responsive, and debriefing processes must be adhered to by bidders.
The failure to quote a bid price in the prescribed format renders a financial bid non-responsive, as per the terms of the tender document.
It is mandatory to give information for being “facial biometric capture” and being “Optional Services (OSs) for specified services”], a bidder could not have quoted “zero” for specific service.
The interpretation of tender criteria by the awarding authority is presumed reasonable unless proven arbitrary or in bad faith, validating their discretion in evaluations.
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
The court upheld the debarment of the petitioner for failing to submit a performance guarantee on time, affirming the procedural fairness and adherence to the RFP guidelines.
Clause 7.1 of RFP reads as under: Information relating to evaluation of proposals and recommendations concerning contract award shall not be disclosed to consultants who submitted proposals or to oth....
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
