Israfil Ali vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Israfil Ali, participated in a tender process for a ferry service issued by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Guwahati. The tender required bidders to submit a GST registration certificate and a 'no objection certificate' (NOC) from co-pattadars for land offered as security, in addition to a non-encumbrance certificate. The petitioner claims to have fulfilled these criteria. However, the tender committee recommended the settlement of the ferry service to the private respondent No. 4, who was the second highest bidder, despite allegedly failing to submit the required GST registration certificate and NOC from co-pattadars. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the tender evaluation process.
Held
The Court held that there was a specific violation of Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968, which was intentional on the part of the respondent authorities. The GST registration certificate and NOC of co-pattadars were identified as qualifying criteria in the tender notice dated 17.08.2020, and these certificates confirm compliance with Rule 16. The Court found the violation of tender conditions and Rule 16 to be evident from the tender authority's decision. Citing a previous order of the Court in WP(C) 3112/2018, which followed a Division Bench ruling in Abdul Mazid Vs. State of Assam, the Court emphasized that the 1968 Rules are mandatory as long as they are in force. Consequently, the Court quashed the tender committee's recommendation of respondent No. 4 and directed respondents No. 1 and 2 to decide the tender notice after complying with the tender conditions and Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968, without deviations. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the tender committee's recommendation to settle the ferry service to respondent No. 4, who allegedly failed to submit the mandatory GST registration certificate and NOC from co-pattadars, is in violation of the tender conditions and Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that respondent No. 4 failed to submit the mandatory GST registration certificate and NOC from co-pattadars, thus not fulfilling the stipulated tender criteria. The petitioner argued that they had complied with all requirements. They relied on the comparative statement annexed to the petition to support their claims regarding respondent No. 4's non-compliance. Revenue/State's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the Transport Department fairly submitted that there was a "glaring mistake apparent on the face of the letter dated 4.5.2021" regarding the tender committee's decision, implicitly acknowledging potential irregularities.
Sections Cited
Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 03-08-2021 Heard Mr. S. Ali , learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department , Assam. The petitioner participated in the tender notice issued vide order No. 412 dated 17.8.2020 in respect of Bhuragaon-Badlichar, via Pavakati, Malaphu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Kartikhowa ferry service issued by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Ulubari at Guwahati . The private respondent No. 4 was also a participant in the said tender process for the said ferry service alongwith other two bidders leaving aside the petitioner. As per the tender conditions the bidders are required to submit GST registration certificate and in the event the land proposed to be secured against the bid value, the co pattadar if any, of said land are required to issue ‘no objection certificate’ while encumbering the said landed property in the tender process. This is in addition to the mandatory non encumbrance certificates required to be issued by the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Referring to the comparative statement annexed to this writ petition it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondent No. 4 failed to submit ‘no objection certificate’ of the co pattadars in respect of the land offered as security against his bid value and also failed to submit the GST registration certificate. The petitioner on the other hand, submitted as security necessary land with NOC of co-pattadars and also the GST registration certificate. It is the submission of Mr. Ali that the petitioner fulfilled the criteria as stipulated in the NIT referred above. Vide impugned letter dated 4.5.2021 issued by the respondent Director, Inland Water Transport Department to the Secretary, Govt. of Assam, the tender committee recommended settlement of the said ferry service namely Bhuragaon-Badlichar, via Pavakati, Malaphu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Kartikhowa ferry service to the private respondent No. 4 who was the second highest bidder but without satisfying the requisite clauses referred hereinabove. Accordingly the petitioner is before this court seeking for interference of the tender evaluation process arising out of the said NIT. Ms. Bora fairly submits that there is a glaring mistake apparent on the face of the Page No.# 3/4 letter dated 4.5.2021 in respect of the decision of the tender committee From the aforesaid decision of the Director IWT, I am satisfied that there is specific violation of Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules 1968, which is intentional in nature by the respondent authority. The GST registration certificate and the NOC of co- pattadars are the qualifying criteria in the said tender notice dated 17.08.2020. The said certificates are in confirmation of the Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules 1968. From the decision of the respondent tender authority a case of specific violation of the tender conditions and Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968 is very much evident. It is relevant to look into an order dated 17.09.2018 passed by this court in WP(C) 3112/2018 wherein the force of the 1968 Rules and the applicability thereon was discussed which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“10. In Abdul Mazid (supra), a Division Bench of this court held that above two provisions to be mandatory. View taken by the departmental Commissioner and Secretary that the 1968 Rules have become archaie and are taken only as guiding principles cannot be accepted. As long as the 1968 Rules are in force, the provisions thereof are required to be followed. Of course the Rule making authority may enact or may frame new Rules, but till new Rules are framed or enacted the existing Rules will continue to hold the field. Non-adherance to the requirement of the 1968 Rules by the departmental authorities cannot be permitted. In that view of the matter, impugned office order dated 31.03.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.” The issue before the Co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 17.09.2018 was similar as the one placed before this court as to specific violation of Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules 1968 and in view of the decision in Hon’ble Division Bench of tender committee recommending the respondent No.4 for settlement of Bhuragaon-Badlichar,
Page No.# 4/4 via Pavakati, Malaphu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Kartikhowa ferry service is also set aside and quashed thereby remanding the matter to the said Director, IWT, Assam to complete the tender process as per the tender conditions read with Rule 16 of the Control & Management of Ferry Rules, 1968 without there being any deviations. With the said observation, this writ petition stands disposed of at this motion stage. The instruction received by Ms. Bora is kept on record.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.