Pankaj Choudhury vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Choudhury, participated in a tender process initiated by the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ATDC) for the development, operation, and management of a cluster at Manas National Park. He was issued a Letter of Intent on 08.02.2023, agreeing to an annual lease rent of Rs. 4,44,000/- plus GST. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 24.07.2023, questioning the authenticity of two documents submitted by the petitioner to prove his experience: a lease agreement dated 15.01.2016 with Birina Tourist Lodge and a trade license showing him as the proprietor of Birina Tourist Lodge. The ATDC had sought clarification from Birina Tourist Lodge, which denied executing the lease agreement. The petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory reply, leading to the cancellation of his contract and forfeiture of his security deposit on 08.08.2023. A review of this cancellation was rejected by a letter dated 01.11.2023, which the petitioner challenged.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the validity of the lease agreement dated 15.01.2016, especially after Birina Tourist Lodge denied executing it. The Court noted the clear contradiction between the lease agreement, which identified Birina Tourist Lodge as the owner, and the trade license, which identified the petitioner as the proprietor of Birina Tourist Lodge. The Court found that the petitioner had not substantiated his claims and that the denial by Birina Tourist Lodge was applicable to the present contract as the same document was used in multiple tenders. Furthermore, the Court observed that a charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner under Sections 420/468 of the IPC, indicating a prima facie case of fraud. The Court also noted that the contract for the cluster had been awarded to M/s Monalisa Construction, who was not made a party to the writ petition, leading to the petition suffering from non-joinder of a necessary party. The Court concluded that Clause 10.5 of the NIT, which allows rejection for false or misrepresented facts, was applicable, and that fraud vitiates everything. The Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, suggesting the petitioner could approach the Civil Court for redressal if he believed the lease agreement was validly executed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the security deposit by the ATDC, based on the alleged falsity of the petitioner's submitted documents, violated the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and evidence). 2. Whether the ATDC had sufficient material to conclude that the documents submitted by the petitioner were false, thereby justifying the cancellation of the contract? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner contended that the ATDC should have proven the falsity of the documents, as the petitioner's bid had already passed the evaluation stage. - He argued that principles of natural justice were violated by not granting him sufficient time to reply to the Show Cause Notice. - The petitioner claimed there was insufficient material to prove his documents were false. - He also argued that the Show Cause Notice indicated a pre-concluded guilt, leaving no room for his defense. - The petitioner sought to set aside the cancellation notice and subsequent tender notices. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The respondents argued that the petitioner submitted contradictory documents: a lease agreement showing Birina Tourist Lodge as owner and a trade license showing the petitioner as proprietor. - Birina Tourist Lodge denied executing the lease agreement. - The respondents stated that the petitioner's bid contained false documents, justifying cancellation as per Clause 10.5 of the NIT. - An FIR was filed against the petitioner, and a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420/468 of the IPC.