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

Held

The Court held that the justification provided by the private respondent no. 5 was not in accordance with the law. The Court found it "intriguing" that the same photographs were submitted for verification across all five cases, despite the works being at different locations, and noted the absence of Geo-tagging. This similarity in photographs, along with the fact that all respondent no. 5s appeared to belong to the same family and submitted identical justifications relying on a misrepresented GSTIN number, led the Court to conclude that the decision-making process was "wholly predetermined" and reflected "bias and nepotism." The Court found that the Department had a "higher obligation to make proper verification" which was not met. The Court interfered with the Work Orders dated January 6, 2024, stating that the process adopted was not in accordance with law. The Court directed that the balance of the works should be done through eligible bidders identified through the tender process. For WP(C)/998/2024, where no progress was made, the work was to be allotted to an eligible bidder. The Court noted that the progress report of 70% work done could not be presumed erroneous as the work orders were dated January 6, 2024.

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 April 6, 2023. A key clause, 2.A.(g), required bidders quoting more than 15% below the approved rate to submit justification with rate analysis and photographic evidence. The petitioner alleged that the private respondent no. 5 in each case quoted rates beyond 15% below the approved rate and submitted justifications. These justifications purportedly included a quotation from 'Maa Enterprise' with a GSTIN number. However, the petitioner discovered this GSTIN belonged to a different entity, 'M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary'. The petitioner's objections to the Department were ignored, and Work Orders were issued to respondent no. 5 on January 6, 2024, with formal publication on February 13, 2024. The petitioner contends the process was irregular and tainted by foul play.

Key Issues

1. Whether the justification submitted by the private respondent no. 5 for quoting rates beyond 15% below the approved rate was adequate and properly verified by the authorities, as required by Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender document? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning interpretation and application of tender conditions). 2. Whether the acceptance of the bids of the private respondent no. 5, based on the submitted justifications, was arbitrary, biased, and demonstrated nepotism, thereby vitiating the tender process? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the justification provided by respondent no. 5 was based on a fraudulent GSTIN number, as the number cited belonged to a different entity than 'Maa Enterprise'. The petitioner also highlighted that the photographic evidence submitted for justification was identical across all five cases, despite pertaining to different locations, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the verification. The petitioner contended that the Department failed to conduct proper verification, especially given the significant deviation from the approved rate, and that the entire process appeared predetermined to favor respondent no. 5, who appeared to be members of the same family. 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 verified by the Junior Engineer. The State also referred to a Gazette Notification regarding GST exemptions, though it was not specified if 'Maa Enterprise' fell under such exemptions.