Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kardak Ete, J.
Abdul Awal S/O- Miyar Uddin - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/4627/2024
Date : 06.03.2025
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Tender Process - NIT dated 01.02.2024 - Challenge to rejection of tender - Petitioner claimed to be highest bidder but failed to submit required documents - Respondent No. 7, despite deficiencies, was awarded tender after document verification - Court held that tender process was not illegal and upheld decision. (Paras 2-18)
(B) Tender Conditions - Clause 23 of NIT allows relaxation of terms but not mandatory document submission - Petitioner’s failure to provide essential documents precluded any claim for relaxation. (Paras 13-14)
(C) Judicial Review - Supreme Court precedent establishes that relief cannot be granted to a party not meeting requisite criteria. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the award of a ferry service tender to the respondent No. 7, alleging improper document submission by the latter and claiming he was the highest bidder.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the tender process and upheld the settlement in favor of the respondent No. 7.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the tender process and the petitioner’s claims regarding document submission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tender process was lawful, emphasizing that the failure to submit required documents negated the petitioner’s claims.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the rejection of his tender and the order dated 30.08.2024, by which, the settlement of Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service for the period 2024-26 has been granted to one Shri Hazrat Ali, the respondent No. 7 herein, pursuant to the tender dated 01.02.2024 issued by the Director, IWT, Assam for ferry service of 23 ferries.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he being an unemployed youth and claims to be a boatman has submitted his bid in response to the tender NIT dated 01.02.2024 issued by the Director of IWT, Govt. of Assam, inviting leasing out of IWT ferry service for the financial year 2024-26 for 23 Ferry services including Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service on 14.02.2024 through the registered portal on online system. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted all the required documents along with the tender paper. Altogether six tenderers including the petitioner had participated in the tender process. It is contended that the petitioner is the highest bidder being quoted bid value of Rs.19,10,000/- and the second highest bidder is Rs.12,10,000/- and the third is Rs.6,60,000/- and the respondent No.7 had offered Rs.6,57,000/- with a difference of the bid value of Rs.12,53,000/-between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that under wrong impression he has submitted financial soundness certificate from non-nationalized bank being Northeast Small Finance Bank. However, having realized his mistake, he again submitted financial soundness certificate from the State Bank of India, Mangaldai branch on 31.05.2024 to the Director of IWT. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per Clause 23 of the NIT, the petitioner has the right to get relaxed of any condition of NIT considering the practical and on field situation. The NOC in the form of affidavit by eight co- pattadars was also submitted, but the same has not been considered by the respondent authorities.
5. The petitioner contends that the respondent authorities have illegally th chosen the 4 highest bidder i.e. the respondent No.7. The petitioner obtained the documents of the respondent No. 7, as the respondent No. 7 has been illegally settled with the said ferry service. After obtaining the documents of respondent No.7, it is found that the documents such as, Jamabandi, Land Valuation Certificate, NEC, IT return and Financial Soundness Certificate were not self-attested as per NIT as under Clause 3 of the terms and condition it provides that the tender must be accompanied with self attested copies of document, failing which, the tender shall be treated as invalid tender. Despite such vital defect of the document of the respondent No.7, the respondent authorities have illegally settled the tender for the aforesaid ferry service in favour of the respondent No.7 by th an order dated 30.08.2024, who is the 4 highest bidder ignoring the petitioner who has quoted Rs.19,10,000/- having a difference of Rs.12,53,000/-, which would cause loss to the exchequer.
6. Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the Clause-3 of the terms and condition, submits that as per the tender condition, the tender must be accompanied with self-attested copy of documents, failing which, the tender will be treated as invalid tender. Therefore, since the respondent No.7 has not submitted self-attested documents with the tender form, the tender of the respondent No.7 ought to have been rejected. More so, the petitioner is the highest bidders th amongst the six bidders and the respondent No.7, being only the 4 high
The court upheld the tender process, emphasizing that failure to submit required documents precludes claims for relaxation or judicial relief.
A public authority cannot abuse its power by giving extension of time to a bidder to deposit the tendered amount, resulting in vitiation of the process of tender.
The court upheld the tender authority's discretion to relax submission requirements, emphasizing that tender evaluations are commercial decisions that should not be interfered with lightly.
Point of Law : A certificate issued by such an authority carries with it a presumption under Section 114 III.(e) – “That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
It is settled position of law that power of judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or mala fide.
The court established that in matters of public revenue settlements, the highest financial bid must be prioritized unless there are valid and justifiable grounds for rejection that comply with the ap....
Non-fulfillment of mandatory conditions under the NIT, specifically Clause 2.7, led to the setting aside of the settlement with respondent no.5.
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
