THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
M/s Friend Enterprise And Anr - Appellant
Versus
M/s Consulting Engineer (Ng) And 8 Ors - Respondent
WA 27 / 2025
Decided On : 04-03-2025
(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 12 - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971 - Requirement of a valid labour license as an essential qualification for bid evaluation - The Tender Evaluation Committee found the bid of the respondent No. 1 non-responsive due to the labor license being valid only for Kamrup(Metro) District - The learned Single Judge interfered with this decision, deeming it arbitrary - The court held that the interpretation of the employer regarding the labor license was valid and not arbitrary, as it was necessary for ensuring fair play in the bidding process. (Paras 22 - 70 )
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the author of the tender document is best placed to interpret its requirements, and judicial intervention is limited to instances of mala fides or arbitrariness. (Paras 45 - 49 )
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the Single Judge's order which allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1, who was declared non-responsive due to a labor license valid only for Kamrup(Metro) District.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the requirement for a labor license covering the District of Sivasagar was valid and necessary for bid evaluation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the requirement for a labor license was arbitrary and whether the employer's interpretation of the tender conditions was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer's interpretation of the labor license requirement was not arbitrary or unreasonable, thus justifying the non-responsiveness of the respondent's bid.
Result: The writ appeals were allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. Hridip Kumar Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant in WA No. 354/2024. Also heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel, and Ms. M. M. Kataky, learned standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in WA No. 354/2024. None has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No. 8 & 9.
Heard Ms. M. M. Kataky, learned standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA No. 27/2025. Also heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel, and Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in WA No. 27/2025. None has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5.
2. Since the facts involved in the above-noted writ appeals are identical and in the appeals, the challenge presented being to the judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3526/2024; both the writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment & order.
3. The appellants, herein, in above-noted writ appeals by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeals, have presented a challenge to the judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3526/2024, allowing the said writ petition by interfering with the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee declaring the bid of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in both these appeals, to be non-responsive.
4. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in these writ appeals, is noticed as under:
The Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, had floated a Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 23.02.2024, inviting bids for the work of construction of new Multicare Hospital including Logistics at Joysagar in Sibsagar District under SOPD-G Scheme.
In pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 23.02.2024, the appellant in WA 354/2024, along with respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and others, had submitted their respective bids. The said Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) laid down a 2-stage evaluation of the bids. Accordingly, the st technical bid of the bidders were considered at the 1 stage by the Tender Evaluation Committee and on such consideration while the bid of the appellant, herein, in WA 354/2024, along with that of respondents No. 8 & 9, therein; were found to be responsive; the bid of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was found to be non-responsive on the ground that the labour license as submitted by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was valid for Kamrup(Metro) District only.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee in holding its bid to be non-responsive; the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had assailed the said decision by way of instituting before the writ Court a writ petition being WP(c)3526/2024.
The learned Single Judge, upon considering the issues arising in the said writ petition as well as upon hearing the parties to the proceeding, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, in WP(c)3526/2024, to allow the writ petition by interfering with the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee insofar as, the technical bid of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, was so considered. On such interference being made; matter was relegated to the Bid Evaluation Committee for arriving at a fresh decision in terms of the determination made in the said judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024.
The operative portion of the said judgment & order, dated23.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3526/2024, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India & anr.
Utkal Supplier v Maa Kanak Durga Enterprises & ors.
N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain & ors.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Pooja Associates(M/S) v. State of Assam & ors.
Mazumdar Enterprise v. Union of India & ors.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & anr.
Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J. K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors
M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom & ors.
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & ors. v. AMR Dev Prabha & ors. (2020) 16 SCC 759
The requirement of a labor license covering the specific district is essential for bid evaluation, and the interpretation by the employer should be upheld unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.
The court established that evaluation criteria in tender documents must be clearly disclosed to ensure fairness, and valid licenses under the Contract Labour Act cannot be arbitrarily deemed invalid.
Government Contract – Tender Call Notice – Judicial review in these matters is equivalent to judicial restraint in these matters. Writ court does not have expertise to correct such decisions by subst....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness; courts should defer to the authority's interpretation of tender documents unless clear malafides or perversity are present.
The decision of the employer in interpreting the conditions of eligibility in a tender document must be respected unless it is shown to be arbitrary, outrageous, and highly unreasonable.
Tender conditions upheld as reasonable for bidder integrity, safety and compliance; judicial review in contracts limited to arbitrariness, mala fides or public interest, with deference to administrat....
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
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.