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

Held

The Court held that the justification provided by respondent no. 5 for quoting rates beyond 15% below the approved rate was inadequate and not properly verified. The Court found it "intriguing" that all photographs submitted as justification were identical for different locations, raising serious questions about the bona fide of the verification process. The Court also noted that the GSTIN number provided in the justification was not of Maa Enterprise, and it was later admitted that Maa Enterprise did not have a GSTIN. The Court found it difficult to accept that construction materials could be sold in large quantities by an entity without a GSTIN, especially when the justification document lacked a seal and letterhead. The Court observed that the recourse to the clause allowing bids below 15% appeared to be a means to allot works to respondent no. 5s, who seemed to be members of the same family, indicating bias and nepotism. The Court found the decision-making process to be "wholly predetermined." While acknowledging that work orders were dated January 6, 2024, and some progress might have been made, the Court interfered with the Work Orders dated January 6, 2024, deeming the process of allotment not in accordance with law. The Court directed that the balance of the works should be done through eligible bidders pursuant to the tender process, and for WP(C)/998/2024, where no progress was made, the work was to be allotted to an eligible bidder. The Court did not enter into the issue of payments made despite an interim order, as part of the work was done prior to the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Balen Roy Medhi, filed five writ petitions challenging the tender process for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Buildings in Nalbari District. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued on April 6, 2023, stipulated that bids exceeding 15% below the approved rate required justification with rate analysis and photographic evidence. The petitioner alleged that the bids of respondent no. 5 in each case, which were significantly below 15%, were accepted based on inadequate justification. The justification provided by respondent no. 5 involved a quotation from Maa Enterprise, which included a GSTIN number. However, the petitioner discovered this GSTIN belonged to a different entity, Dhanjit Gupta (M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary), and that Maa Enterprise did not possess a GSTIN. Despite objections, the department proceeded to issue Work Orders on January 6, 2024, and later published them on February 13, 2024. The petitioner contended that the process was irregular and showed favoritism.

Key Issues

1. Whether the justification provided by respondent no. 5 for quoting rates beyond 15% below the approved rate, as required by Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender document, was adequate and properly verified by the authorities, turning on the interpretation and application of the tender conditions. 2. Whether the acceptance of bids based on a quotation from an entity (Maa Enterprise) that did not possess a GSTIN, and the use of an incorrect GSTIN number in the justification, renders the tender process invalid, concerning the principles of fair competition and due diligence under the Assam GST Act, 2017. 3. Whether the identical nature of photographs submitted as justification across multiple bids for different locations, and the fact that all respondent no. 5s appear to be family members, indicate bias and nepotism, thereby vitiating the decision-making process. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the justification provided was based on a false premise, as the GSTIN number was incorrect and Maa Enterprise lacked a GSTIN. The identical photographs submitted for different locations were suspicious and indicated a lack of genuine verification. The petitioner also highlighted that all respondent no. 5s seemed to be from the same family, suggesting nepotism. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the works were different and no family members bid for the same work. They also argued that Maa Enterprise might be exempt from GST registration. The State also pointed to a verification report by the Junior Engineer and photographs as evidence of due diligence. The State also noted that work orders were dated January 6, 2024, and that significant progress had been made, suggesting the work orders should not be interfered with.