Judicial review in contractual matters is limited to evaluating decision-making processes and does not extend to substituting the authority's decisions unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides is present.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the outcome of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Executive Officer, Silchar Municipal Board for operation and maintenance of two parks. The relief prayed for in this petition reads as follows:

“Under the aforestated premises, it is humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records pertaining to Notice Inviting Tender bearing no. SMGR-80/ AMRUT/ 2024- 257 11 dated 22.07.2024 issued by Respondent No. 7 and issue Notice/ Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/ or Certiorari and/ or any other Writ, direction or Order of the like nature be not issued directing the Respondent Authorities to allot the work in connection with Operation & Maintenance of the Gandhi Bagh Park and Norsingtola Park pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender bearing no. SMGR-80, AMRUT/ 2024-25/ 11 dated 22.07.2024 issued by Respondent No. 7 in favour of the Petitioner in view of the highest offer made by the Petitioner and to set aside any Work Order, that might have been issued in favour of Respondent No. 8 whose offer is lesser than the Petitioner and on hearing the cause or causes as may be shown, to make the rule absolute and/or to pass such further other order as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.

AND

Pending adjudication of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to suspend any Work Order, that might have been issued in favour of Respondent No. 8 in connection with Operation & Maintenance of the Gandhi Baah Park and Norsingtola Park with a direction to Respondent No. 7 to directly carry out Operation & Maintenance of the Gandhi Bagh Park and Norsingtola Park till the final adjudication of the Writ Petition.”

2. The facts, as projected in the petition, in brief, are that Silchar Municipal Board (hereinafter SMB) had issued an NIT dated 22.07.2024 for Operation and Maintenance of the Gandhi Bagh Park and Norsingtola Park. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible for the allotment of the aforesaid work, had offered his bid whereby, 57% of the collection would be the share of the SMB. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 had made an offer of 37%. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Tender Evaluation Committee and to place the plan. However, the petitioner could see that the respondent no. 8 was operating the work of maintenance. The petitioner could learn that on the grounds of lack of experience and non-furnishing of certain documents, his bid was rejected. It was also learnt that the work was allotted to the respondent no. 8 at the rate offered by the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly instituted.

3. I have heard Shri D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel, Assam; Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and Shri S. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.

4. Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision to deny the work to the petitioner in spite of him emerging as the highest bidder is illegal and arbitrary. He has submitted that the offer made by his client was 57% which was much higher than that of the offer of the respondent no. 8 which was 37%. He has also submitted that the reasons which could be gathered f