The court emphasized the necessity for transparency in public procurement processes, ruling that arbitrary actions in tender decisions violate procedural fairness and statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the notice inviting for re-tender (e-Tender) No.MCH/2024/948 dated 09.01.2024 for providing annual job contract of Dietary Service to the patient admitted to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh issued by the Superintendent, Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh.

3. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to a notice inviting for e-Tender through the e-Procurement system for providing an annual job contract for dietary service to the patient admitted to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh, bearing No. MCH/2023/25858 dated 03.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the first tender), issued by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioner, who is a government-registered 1^st Class Contractor and Supplier, along with two other bidders, participated in the said tender. Though, in the technical bid, the petitioner qualified; however, the financial bid of the petitioner was not opened.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that thereafter, by notice inviting for re-tender (e-tender) through the e-Procurement system for providing the same services as that of the first tender to the patient admitted to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh, bearing No. MCH/2023/29988 dated 16.11.2023, was issued by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the second re-tender). In the said tender process, four bidders, including the petitioner and proforma respondent No.7, participated; however, the technical bids of all the bidders were rejected. Accordingly, for the third time, another notice inviting for a re-tender (e-tender) through the e- Procurement system for providing the same service as that the first tender and second re-tender were issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide No. MCH/2024/948 dated 09.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned third tender).

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, having noted the aforesaid advertisement in the newspaper on 10.01.2024, the petitioner participated in the said tender process. The proforma respondent No.7 also participated along with the petitioner. Thereafter, the technical bids of the two bidders were opened, and upon being duly qualified, their financial bids were also opened. However, though the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, notice inviting tenders for the same services as that of the first tender, second re-tender, and the third impugned re-tenders were issued in the portal of Government e-Market (hereinafter referred to as the GeM) by Bid Document No. GEM/2024/B/4755482 dated 08.03.2024.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid issuance of a fresh tender against the same services for which the petitioner had been duly qualified as the lowest tenderer, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the manner in which the tender for the subject work has been re-tendered one after the other despite there being participants and qualified technical bids itself goes to show the arbitrariness involved in the decision making process. He further submits that though the petitioner in the third re-tender was the lowest tenderer, the authorities,