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

Held

The Court held that the justification provided by respondent no. 5 was not in accordance with the tender conditions. The reliance on a quotation with an incorrect GSTIN, and the subsequent revelation that the quoted entity ('Maa Enterprise') might not even possess a GSTIN, rendered the justification suspect. The Court found it intriguing that identical photographs, lacking geo-tagging and appearing to be from a single location, were used as justification for works at various locations across Nalbari District, raising serious doubts about the bona fides of the verification process. The Court noted that respondent no. 5 in different cases appeared to belong to the same family and submitted identical justifications, suggesting a predetermined allotment process tainted with bias and nepotism. The Court found that the decision-making process, including the acceptance of the flawed verification report, was not in accordance with the law. The Court interfered with the Work Orders dated 06.01.2024. The balance of the works were to be done through eligible bidders, and for WP(C)/998/2024, where no progress was made, the work was to be allotted to an eligible bidder. The Court expressly did not enter into the issue of payments made for running bills, considering that some work had progressed prior to 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. The Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 06.04.2023. 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 this threshold and submitted justifications. These justifications involved a quotation from 'Maa Enterprise' which included a GSTIN number. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the GSTIN number belonged to a different entity, 'M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary', and that 'Maa Enterprise' did not possess a GSTIN. 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 the process was irregular and involved foul play.

Key Issues

1. Whether the justification submitted by respondent no. 5, relying on a quotation with an incorrect GSTIN and from an entity potentially not registered under GST, meets the requirements of Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender document, thereby validating bids quoted beyond 15% below the approved rate? 2. Whether the verification process undertaken by the Department, particularly the photographic evidence submitted, was adequate and bona fide, given that identical photographs were used for different locations and bidders? 3. Whether the allotment of works to respondent no. 5, who appear to be members of the same family and submitted identical justifications, demonstrates bias and nepotism, rendering the decision-making process flawed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the justification provided by respondent no. 5 was based on a fraudulent GSTIN and an entity that may not even be GST-registered, failing the mandatory requirement of Clause 2.A.(g). The petitioner also contended that the verification reports, especially the identical photographs used across multiple cases, were fabricated and did not reflect genuine field verification, indicating a predetermined outcome. The petitioner further argued that the common address and identical justifications from respondent no. 5, who appear to be related, point to nepotism and bias in the allotment process. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the works were different and no family member bid for the same work. They also submitted that while Maa Enterprise might not have a GSTIN, the quotation was from a retailer, and certain entities are exempt under the Assam GST Act, 2017. The State also referred to a verification report by the Junior Engineer and annexed photographs as evidence of due diligence.