Jyotish Das vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Facts

The appellant, a contractor, challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was aggrieved by the award of a contract for the construction of RCC Drains to respondent No. 3. The appellant contended that the bids of respondent No. 3 and another bidder, Harshajit Roy, were beyond 10% below the estimated cost of Rs. 114.43 lakhs, making them non-responsive as per Clause 29(IV) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The appellant's bid was exactly 10% below the estimated cost. The respondent Department argued that they applied a rounding-off formula, based on a 2004 Government Notification, which rendered the bids of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy responsive, with differences of only 43 paise and 1 paisa respectively from the appellant's bid.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that while the bids of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy were technically beyond 10% below the estimated cost, applying the rounding-off formula to the nearest rupee resulted in their bids being treated as equal to the appellant's bid, which was within the 10% limit. The Court reasoned that guidelines issued by one Government Department can be applied by other Departments in contract matters, and there was no reason why the 2004 Notification could not be applied. Furthermore, the Court noted that the 2004 Notification itself was not under challenge. The Court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the difference of 43 paise or 1 paisa in a contract of Rs. 114.43 lakhs was hyper-technical and did not constitute a real difference. The Court also referenced the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 01.01.1991 and Section 170 of the CGST Act, which also approve rounding-off formulas. The Court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Financial Bids of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy, which were beyond 10% below the estimated cost, were liable to be rejected as non-responsive under Clause 29(IV) of the NIT, or if they could be considered responsive after applying a rounding-off formula based on the Notification dated 21.09.2004. Petitioner's Arguments: - The Financial Bids of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy were beyond 10% below the estimated cost and thus non-responsive as per Clause 29(IV) of the NIT. - Clause 26(III) of the NIT mandates rejection of non-substantially responsive bids. - The Notification dated 21.09.2004 is applicable only to the Public Works Department and not the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, which issued the NIT. - The NIT did not mention the applicability of the 2004 Notification, making its reliance arbitrary and illegal. Respondent's Arguments: - The Tender Committee applied the rounding-off formula from the Notification dated 21.09.2004, after which the bids of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy were considered responsive. - The bid capacity of respondent No. 3 and Harshajit Roy was significantly better than the appellant's. - The difference of 43 paise and 1 paisa was hyper-technical and did not make a real difference. - The Notification dated 21.09.2004 was not under challenge.