Jyotish Das vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the bid of Respondent No. 3, which was Rs. 77,85,899.69, was not non-responsive. The fact that it was 31 paise lower than the petitioner's bid was not disputed. However, the Court relied on Notification No. CRD.119/2003/5 dated 21.09.2004, which mandates rounding off bid prices to the nearest rupee. This notification, which was not challenged, meant that Respondent No. 3's bid, after rounding, would be considered Rs. 77,85,900.00, thus not violating Clause 29(IV) of the NIT. The Court considered the difference of 31 paise to be hyper-technical in a contract of this magnitude. Furthermore, the Court noted that the bid capacity of Respondent No. 3 was significantly better, as stated by the Chief Engineer and not challenged by the petitioner. The Court also referenced RBI Circular RPC D No. RF.BC.68/D.1-90-91 and Section 170 of the CGST Act, which permit rounding off to the nearest rupee, to support the reasonableness of the rounding practice. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the decision to award the contract to Respondent No. 3.

Facts

The petitioner, Jyotish Das, challenged the acceptance of the bid of Respondent No. 3 in a tender process. The petitioner's bid was Rs. 77,85,900.00 (L2), while Respondent No. 3's bid was Rs. 77,85,899.69 (L1). The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3's bid was non-responsive as it was more than 10% below the estimated amount by 31 paise, violating Clause 29(IV) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The respondents argued that a Government of Assam notification dated 21.09.2004 mandated rounding off bid prices to the nearest rupee, which would render Respondent No. 3's bid compliant. They also highlighted Respondent No. 3's better bid capacity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bid of Respondent No. 3, which was Rs. 77,85,899.69, is non-responsive under Clause 29(IV) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for being more than 10% below the estimated amount, considering it was only 31 paise lower than the petitioner's bid of Rs. 77,85,900.00. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Clause 29(IV) of the NIT clearly states that a bid value beyond 10% below the estimated amount must be rejected as non-responsive. The bid of Respondent No. 3, being 31 paise below the petitioner's bid (which itself was likely within the acceptable range), should have been rejected. They relied on Clause 26(III) of the NIT, which states that non-responsive financial bids will be rejected. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that Notification No. CRD.119/2003/5 dated 21.09.2004, issued by the Government of Assam, PWD, requires rounding off bid prices to the nearest rupee. Therefore, Respondent No. 3's bid, after rounding, did not violate Clause 29(IV). They also contended that Respondent No. 3 had a significantly better bid capacity as per Clause 29(V) of the NIT.