Kinaram Boro vs. The Bodoland Territorial Council And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not complied with an essential condition of the Tender Notice, specifically Clause 8(b), which required the submission of the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy. 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 positioned to interpret its requirements. Since Clause 8(b) was a mandatory condition, its non-fulfilment rendered the petitioner's bid non-compliant. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the settlement of the market in favour of respondent no. 5, as the petitioner had failed to meet a mandatory requirement of the tender. The writ petition was dismissed on this ground.

Facts

The petitioner, Kinaram Boro, participated in a tender process initiated by the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for the settlement of Gerua Market for the period 2023-2024. The petitioner claims to have submitted the highest bid of Rs. 74,656/-, exceeding the bid of respondent no. 5, Subhash Basumatary, who bid Rs. 70,100/-. The petitioner alleged that despite his bid being compliant and higher, the market was settled in favour of respondent no. 5. The BTC authorities, however, contended that the petitioner's bid was rejected because he failed to submit the original Tax Clearance Certificate, a GST Clearance Certificate that was not signed, and the original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for the settlement of Gerua Market was justified based on the submitted tender documents, specifically concerning the non-submission of the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy, the Original Tax Clearance Certificate, and the GST Clearance Certificate (Question of Law). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that his bid was the highest and compliant, and the market ought to have been settled in his favour as per Clause 11 of the Tender Notice. He contended that he had deposited the offered rate. He implicitly argued that the rejection grounds were not valid or that the authorities acted arbitrarily. Revenue (BTC): Contended that the petitioner's bid was rightly rejected as he failed to submit essential documents, including the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy, the Original Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer, and a properly signed GST Clearance Certificate, as stipulated in Clause 8(b), (f), and (j) of the Tender Notice.