Himu Rajbongshi vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Himu Rajbongshi, filed a writ petition challenging the tender process for Group-A work initiated by the Executive Officer, Chapar Municipal Board. The petitioner claimed to be the Lowest Bidder (L1) but alleged that the contract was awarded to respondent No. 4. The petitioner's bid amount was 15% below the estimated amount. The revenue, represented by the State of Assam, submitted a comparative statement of bids. The petitioner had submitted a GST registration certificate and PAN card, but not the ESI document. Respondent No. 4's bid was found to be complete in all respects.
Held
The Court held that the tendering authority should reconsider the evaluation of the tender documents. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that Condition No. 8 of the NIT allowed for submission of alternative documents, and the petitioner had submitted the GST registration certificate and PAN card. The Court noted that the petitioner's bid amount was 15% below the estimated amount, appearing to be the lowest. The Court directed the tendering authority to take a fresh decision within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, after re-evaluating the tender documents in accordance with the NIT conditions. The Court did not explicitly decide whether the petitioner's tender was indeed complete or incomplete, but rather ordered a reconsideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's tender was incomplete for non-furnishing of the ESI document, despite submitting the GST registration certificate and PAN card, in light of Condition No. 8 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.12.2018? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Condition No. 8 of the NIT required submission of *either* a GST registration certificate, ESI certificate, EPF, PAN card, or address proof. Since the petitioner submitted the GST certificate and PAN card, their tender should not have been treated as incomplete for the absence of the ESI certificate. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the comparative statement and the arguments presented, implied that the petitioner's tender was incomplete due to the missing ESI document, leading to the award of the contract to respondent No. 4.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 15-02-2019 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. On 06.02.2019, the following order was passed:- “Grievance of the petitioner is that in the tender process for Group-A work vide NIT dated 20.12.2018 issued by the Executive Officer, Chapar Municipal Board, Chapar, despite being L1 he was not awarded the contract; rather, contract has been awarded to respondent No.
On the next date, Mr. Goswami shall produce the minutes of the tender evaluation committee meeting. List on 15.02.2019.” Today, when the matter is called upon, learned State Counsel has produced the comparative statement of Group A work prepared by the Executive Officer, Chapar Municipal Board. From the comparative statement, it is seen that altogether six tenderers have submitted bids including petitioner and respondent No. 4, out of which bid of respondent No. 4 was found complete in all respects. On the other hand, in so far petitioner is concerned though his bid amount is 15% below the estimated amount he had not submitted document pertaining to ESI. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to condition No. 8 of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.12.2018 and submits that a tenderer was required to submit photocopy of GST registration certificate/ESI/EPF/PAN Card/address proof alongwith the tender. Petitioner had submitted GST registration certificate and PAN card alongwith his tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a bare reading of condition No. 8 would
Page No.# 3/3 indicate that a tenderer was required to submit either GST registration certificate or ESI certificate or EPF or PAN card or address proof alongwith the tender. Since petitioner had submitted GST certificate and PAN card his tender could not have been treated as incomplete for non-furnishing of ESI certificate. From the comparative statement, bid value of respondent No. 4 is not discernible as it is not mentioned whereas in respect of the petitioner, it is mentioned as 15% below the estimated amount which appears to be the lowest. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that the tendering authority may reconsider evaluation of the tender documents in terms of the conditions contained in the NIT dated 20.12.2018 and thereafter take a fresh decision within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. After such decision is taken, tendering authority may proceed with the matter. This disposes of the writ petition.
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.