ORDER

Date : 22-06-2022 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3394/2021 and Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3610/2021. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, Assam. Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. khound, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of a qualified bidder on the strength of impleadment applications filed by him in both these writ petitions.

It appears that the DFO, North Lakhimpur had earlier issued e-tender notice dated

07-06-2021 inviting online bids for grant of mineral concession contract in respect of Dikrong Sand and Gravel Mining Contract Area and few other minor mineral concession areas for a period of 07 years. In response to the e-auction notice dated 07-06-2021, as many as 10 tenderors including the two writ petitioners and the private respondent had submitted their bids. Tenders were to be evaluated in two parts, viz. technical bids and financial bids. However, after opening the technical bids the authorities had disqualified as many as 07 tenderors including the two writ petitioners. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3394/2021 was apparently disqualified on the ground that he had failed to submit an affidavit showing no dues to the Govt. as well as court fee of Rs. 100/-. The allegation against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3610/2021 is that he had failed to submit court fee of Rs. 100/-. On such count the bids submitted by both the writ petitioners were held to be technically non-responsive. The price bids are yet to be opened. It was at that stage the writ petitioner had approached this Court seeking interference in the matter.

During the pendency of the writ petition, AMTRON, Assam which is the nodal agency to conduct the online bidding process, had apparently issued letter dated 27-07- 2021 recommending that the tender itself be cancelled and a fresh e-auction notice be issued.

Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Forest Department submits on instruction that although no final decision has yet been taken regarding cancellation of the tender, yet, in view of the Clauses- 8, 13 and 18 of the tender document, the departmental authority would be open to revisit the matter upon physical verification of the documents to be submitted by the writ petitioners, if such a direction is issued by this Court.

Responding to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the qualified bidder have candidly submitted that if the departmental authorities are agreeable to re-verify the documents of the bidders physically, then they would have no objection if the writ petitions are disposed of with such a direction.

Since the tender document contains clauses which permits the recourse proposed by the departmental authority, viz. revisiting the technical evaluation and since all the parties are agreeable to such a direction, I dispose of these writ petitions by providing that within 02 weeks from today the official respondents may take steps for revisiting the decision of the technical evaluation committee after physical verification of the hard copies of the documents relied upon by both the petitioners.

Since there are as many as 07 technical bidders who have been disqualified on technical ground, it would be open for the departmental authorities to extend similar consideration to the technical bids of the other bidders as well, who are not before this Court, if those bidders continue to show interest in the matter.

Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant