Jyotish Das vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Facts

The appellant, Jyotish Das, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Assam, to declare respondent No. 3's financial bid as responsive. The appellant contended that respondent No. 3's bid of Rs. 77,85,899.69 was beyond 10% below the estimated cost of Rs. 86.51 lakh, violating Clause 29(IV) of the Short Notice Inviting E-Tender (NIT). The appellant's bid was Rs. 77,85,900, exactly 10% below the estimated cost. The department argued that a notification from the Public Works Department (PWD) dated 21.09.2004 allowed rounding off bid prices to the nearest rupee, which made respondent No. 3's bid compliant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, deeming the 31 paise difference hyper-technical and not warranting interference, also noting that the PWD notification was not under challenge. The appellant then filed this writ appeal.

Held

The Court held that the writ appeal is dismissed. Regarding the applicability of the PWD Notification dated 21.09.2004, the Court found no reason why a guideline issued by one government department cannot be applied by another, especially in contract matters where the stand of government departments should be consistent. The Court also noted that the learned Single Judge had rightly observed that this notification was not under challenge. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the learned Single Judge's observation that the difference of 31 paise in a contract of Rs. 77,85,900/- is hyper-technical and does not make 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, as supporting the department's action. Therefore, no case for interference was made out.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Notification dated 21.09.2004, issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, is applicable to the NIT issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, despite it not being explicitly mentioned in the NIT? Appellant's arguments: The appellant argued that the PWD notification was applicable only to the Public Works Department and not to the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, which issued the NIT. They contended that since the NIT did not mention the applicability of this notification, the department's reliance on it was arbitrary and illegal. The appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider this crucial aspect. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent department argued that the Tender Committee, relying on the PWD Notification dated 21.09.2004, applied the formula of rounding off the bid price to the nearest rupee. They also contended that the bid capacity of respondent No. 3 was better than the appellant's. The learned Single Judge noted that the PWD notification was not under challenge.