Sri Naseer Ahamed vs. Bajpe Grama Panchayath

Held

The Court held that the Grama Panchayath's conduct in not awarding the tender to the petitioner, who was the highest bidder with a bid inclusive of GST, and instead proceeding to pass a resolution for re-tender was arbitrary. However, the Court also noted that the tender period (April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020) had already lapsed by the time the petition was being heard, and market tax had been collected during this period. Consequently, interfering with the resolution to set aside the re-tender was deemed inappropriate due to the elapsed time and practical realities. Despite finding the Grama Panchayath's action arbitrary, the Court did not quash the resolution or direct the award of the tender to the petitioner. Instead, it awarded costs to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that while arbitrary action by a public authority can be condemned, relief may be denied if the underlying contract period has expired and the relief sought would be impractical or inequitable.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Naseer Ahamed, participated in a tender process initiated by the Bajpe Grama Panchayath for the collection of Market Tax for the period from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The tender was invited on February 18, 2019. The petitioner was the third highest bidder, but crucially, his bid included GST, unlike the first and second highest bidders. Despite this, the Grama Panchayath passed a resolution on March 5, 2019, to re-tender the collection of Market Tax. The petitioner challenged this resolution by filing a writ petition, seeking to quash the resolution and direct the respondents to award the tender to him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the resolution dated 05.03.2019 passed by the respondent Grama Panchayath to re-tender for the collection of Market Tax is arbitrary and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner was the highest bidder whose bid included GST, while other bidders did not quote GST? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of fair tender process and contract law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Grama Panchayath acted arbitrarily by deciding to re-tender instead of awarding the contract to him, who was the highest bidder and whose bid correctly included GST. He contended that the bids of the first and second highest bidders should have been rejected for not including GST, making his bid the most favorable. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the arbitrariness of the re-tender. However, the court noted that the time period for the tender had lapsed, and market tax had already been collected, suggesting practical difficulties in interfering with the resolution.