Kinaram Boro vs. The Bodoland Territorial Council And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to comply with an essential condition of the Tender Notice, specifically Clause 8(b), which required the submission of the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy. The Court noted that a perusal of the official records confirmed the non-submission of these documents by the petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another, the Court stated that the author of the tender document is best placed to interpret its requirements. Therefore, the non-fulfilment of Clause 8(b) constituted a failure to meet an essential condition. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the selection of respondent no. 5, as the petitioner had not fulfilled a mandatory condition. The Court did not delve into the other grounds for rejection raised by the respondents.

Facts

The petitioner, Kinaram Boro, participated in a tender process initiated by the Block Development Department, Dalgaon Sialmari Development Block, for the settlement of markets and parking places for the period 2023-2024. The petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 49,755/- for the Koupati Bus Parking, which was higher than the bid of respondent no. 5, Rs. 45,000/-. Despite offering a higher bid, the petitioner's bid was rejected, and the settlement was approved in favour of respondent no. 5 by an Approval Order dated 03.07.2023 and subsequently by an Order of Settlement dated 27.07.2023. The petitioner contended that his bid was rejected on the incorrect ground of not annexing a GST Certificate, as the tender notice only required it if applicable and did not mandate its submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary and illegal, given that the stated reason for rejection (non-submission of GST Certificate) was not a mandatory condition as per Clause 8(f) of the Tender Notice, which stated 'GST Clearance, if applicable'. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the Tender Notice did not mandate the submission of a GST Certificate, and its absence was not a valid ground for rejecting his higher bid. He contended that the respondents incorrectly applied this condition. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents, represented by the BTC authorities, argued that the petitioner's bid was rejected for multiple reasons, including the non-submission of the Original Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer, a non-signed GST Clearance Certificate, and crucially, the non-submission of the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy as required by Clause 8(b) of the Tender Notice. They asserted that the decision to reject the petitioner's bid was justified based on these non-compliances.