Balen Roy Medhi vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the process adopted for allotting the works to respondent no. 5 was not in accordance with law. The Court found the justification provided by respondent no. 5 to be suspect due to the incorrect GSTIN number and the identical, unverified photographic evidence submitted across all five cases. The Court noted that the photographs lacked Geo-tagging and were identical, making it impossible for them to represent field verification at different locations. The Court also observed that the private respondents no. 5 appeared to belong to the same family, and the identical justifications further suggested a predetermined outcome aimed at allotting works to them, indicating bias and nepotism. The Court found the verification report dated 09.10.2023 to be flawed. Consequently, the Work Orders dated 06.01.2024 were interfered with. The Court directed that the balance of the works, where progress had been made, should be completed by eligible bidders identified through a proper tender process. For WP(C)/998/2024, where no progress was made, the work was to be allotted to an eligible bidder. The Court did not delve into the issue of payments made after the interim order, as some work had progressed prior to it.

Facts

The petitioner, Balen Roy Medhi, filed five writ petitions challenging the tender process for the construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Buildings in Nalbari district. The Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 06.04.2023, with a clause requiring justification for bids exceeding 15% below the approved rate. The petitioner alleged that the private respondent no. 5 (different individuals in each petition, but appearing to be from the same family) submitted bids beyond this threshold. Their justification relied on a quotation from 'Maa Enterprise' which included a GSTIN number. However, it was discovered that this GSTIN belonged to a different entity, 'M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary'. The petitioner's objections were reportedly ignored, and work orders were issued to respondent no. 5 on 06.01.2024, with formal publication on 13.02.2024. The petitioner contends this process was irregular and indicative of foul play.

Key Issues

1. Whether the justification provided by the private respondent no. 5 for quoting rates beyond 15% below the approved rate, as required by Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender document, was valid and properly verified by the authorities, considering the alleged misrepresentation of the GSTIN number and the similarity of photographic evidence across multiple bids? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Clause 2.A.(g) of the NIT and principles of fair tender process). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the justification provided by respondent no. 5 was based on a fraudulent quotation, as the GSTIN number cited belonged to a different entity. Furthermore, the photographic evidence submitted for justification was identical across all five cases, raising serious doubts about the genuineness of the field verification. The petitioner contended that the Department failed in its obligation to conduct proper verification, leading to a predetermined allotment of works to individuals appearing to be from the same family, thus reflecting bias and nepotism. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the works were different and no family members bid for the same work. They also submitted that the justification was provided and accepted. Regarding the GSTIN issue, it was explained that Maa Enterprise does not have a GSTIN number, and the quoted number was erroneous. The State also pointed to a verification report by the Junior Engineer and annexed photographs as evidence of due diligence.