Jyotish Das vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the bid of Respondent No. 3, which was lower than 10% below the estimated rate by 43 paise, was not a ground for interference. This was based on Notification No. CRD.119/2003/5 dated 21.09.2004, which allows for the rounding off of bid prices to the nearest rupee. The Court reasoned that by applying this notification, Respondent No. 3's bid would be considered as exactly 10% below the estimated price, thus not violating Clause 29(IV) of the NIT. The Court found the petitioner's argument of a 43 paise difference to be hyper-technical, especially in a contract of this magnitude. Furthermore, the Court noted that the notification allowing rounding off had not been challenged. 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, as supporting the practice. The Court also acknowledged the respondents' submission regarding Respondent No. 3's superior bid capacity under Clause 29(V) of the NIT, which was also not challenged. The Court concluded that there were 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, Narayan Jyoti Talukdar, for a contract work by the Chief Engineer (Technical), Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3's bid was 43 paise below 10% of the estimated amount, making it non-responsive as per Clause 29(IV) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The petitioner's bid was exactly 10% below the estimated amount, placing it at L-3, while Respondent No. 3 was declared L-1. Another bidder, Harshajit Roy, whose bid was 1 paisa below 10% of the estimated amount, was L-2. The respondents argued that a notification dated 21.09.2004 from the Government of Assam, PWD, 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 superior bid capacity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bid of Respondent No. 3, which was 43 paise below 10% of the estimated amount, should be rejected as non-responsive under Clause 29(IV) of the NIT, thereby violating Clause 26(III) of the NIT. The petitioner argued that Clause 29(IV) of the NIT clearly states that quoted bid values beyond 10% below the estimated amount shall not be considered and rates quoted beyond 10% lower shall be rejected as non-responsive. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3's bid, being 43 paise lower than the 10% threshold, was therefore non-responsive and should have been rejected. Consequently, the petitioner argued that the contract should have been awarded to them. The respondents argued that Notification No. CRD.119/2003/5 dated 21.09.2004, issued by the Commissioner & Special Secretary, Government of Assam, PWD, mandates rounding off bid prices to the nearest rupee. They contended that applying this notification to Respondent No. 3's bid meant there was no violation of Clause 29(IV) of the NIT. The respondents also pointed to Clause 29(V) of the NIT, asserting that Respondent No. 3 had a significantly better bid capacity than the petitioner.