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 for quoting rates beyond 15% below the approved rate was not in accordance with the law and was not properly verified by the authorities. The Court found it "intriguing" that all photographs submitted as justification were identical across the five cases, despite pertaining to different locations, and lacked geo-tagging, raising serious questions about the bona fide of the verification. The Court also noted that the GSTIN number provided in the quotation was not of 'Maa Enterprise' but of a different entity, and the explanation that 'Maa Enterprise' did not have a GSTIN number was problematic, especially for bulk material sales. The Court observed that the private respondents no. 5, though different individuals, shared the same address, and the identical justifications and rates suggested a predetermined allotment process, reflecting bias and nepotism. Consequently, the Court interfered with the work orders dated January 6, 2024. The Court directed that the balance of the works should be done through 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 for running bills as part of the work had progressed before the interim order.

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. 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 private respondent no. 5 in each case quoted rates beyond this threshold, submitted flawed justifications, and were awarded work orders on January 6, 2024. The justification involved a quotation from 'Maa Enterprise' with a GSTIN number that was later found to belong to a different entity, 'M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary'. The petitioner's objections to the Department were reportedly ignored. The formal work orders were published on February 13, 2024.

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 adequate and properly verified by the authorities, and if not, whether this vitiates the allotment of work orders. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the justification was based on a fraudulent quotation, as the provided GSTIN number did not belong to the stated supplier ('Maa Enterprise'). The petitioner argued that the photographs submitted as evidence were identical across all five cases and lacked geo-tagging, raising serious doubts about the verification process. The petitioner further argued that the private respondents no. 5, despite being different individuals, shared the same address, suggesting a familial connection and potential nepotism. The petitioner also questioned the validity of a quotation from an entity that allegedly did not possess a GSTIN number. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the works were different and no family members bid for the same work. The State also submitted that the justification was provided and accepted by the Department. The State referred to a Gazette Notification dated June 3, 2019, regarding exemptions under the Assam GST Act, 2017, to suggest potential exemptions for certain entities.