Ajoy Kumar Basumatary vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the decision-making process was flawed. The Tendering Authority/Bid Evaluation Committee considered the statement of annual turnover of respondent no. 5, a document not requested in the tender notice or tender form. This factor was deemed irrelevant and extraneous. The Court found that the other five responsive bidders, including the petitioner, who offered the same bid amount, were treated discriminatorily because their bids were not considered successful solely on the ground that they had not submitted an annual turnover statement, which was never called for. The Court quashed the approval granted to respondent no. 5 and remanded the matter to the BTC authorities to proceed afresh from the stage of preparing the comparative statement. The authorities were directed to consider only relevant factors based on the tender notice and tender form, confining themselves to the terms and conditions therein, and to complete the exercise within one month. The Court focused on the procedural infirmities rather than the merit of the decision itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajoy Kumar Basumatary, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated March 16, 2023, from the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-Cum-CHD, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), approving the settlement of the Rowta Bagan Sand and Stone Mahal with respondent no. 5, Nasi Ram Daimari. This approval was based on a comparative bidding process initiated by a tender notice dated December 5, 2022. The tender notice fixed the government value for the mahal at Rs. 24,31,000/-. Ten bidders submitted bids. The comparative statement showed that six bidders, including the petitioner and respondent no. 5, quoted the same bid value of Rs. 30,38,750/-, and all were found responsive with all required documents furnished. However, respondent no. 5 was declared the successful bidder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the decision-making process for awarding the mining contract for the Rowta Bagan Sand and Stone Mahal was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, given that multiple bidders offered the same highest bid amount and were found responsive. Petitioner's contention: Six bidders quoted the same bid value of Rs. 30,38,750/- and were found responsive. The authorities selected respondent no. 5 without providing any reason for choosing him over the other equally placed bidders, thus exhibiting arbitrariness. Respondent no. 5's contention: The impugned communication was issued after approval of the comparative statement and subsequent steps, including a provisional Letter of Intent, preparation of a mining plan, and execution of a contract agreement, indicating the process had progressed significantly. No public interest was affected. The respondent BTC authorities did not file a counter-affidavit.