Babu Ram Brahma vs. The Bodoland Territorial Council And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 15.07.2022, allotting the Koupati Weekly Market to respondent no. 6, was not sustainable in law. The Court found that the petitioner's bid of Rs. 8,91,651/- was the highest valid bid, and the authorities failed to provide any reasons for rejecting it and accepting the lower bid of respondent no. 6 (Rs. 5,17,500/-). The Court noted that Clause 11 of the NIT requires written reasons for not settling with the highest bidder and mandates consideration of attending facts, circumstances, and absurdity of rates. The argument that the petitioner's bid was exorbitant and would cause hardship to petty vendors was found to be unsubstantiated, especially since Clause 11 itself provides for fixed rates that cannot be deviated from. The Court also observed that the concept of viability of a rate was not a specific tender condition and did not appear to have been considered. The Court dismissed the argument raised by respondent no. 6 regarding the defect in the tender process (Sales Tax Clearance Certificate) as a beneficiary of the allotment cannot raise such a point. Citing catena of judgments on transparency and fairness in distribution of state largesse, the Court emphasized the paramount importance of the quantum of revenue. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the market be allotted to the petitioner. It also directed the authorities to refund the deposited amount to respondent no. 6 and complete the new process within 15 days, given the 11-month tenure of the market.

Facts

The petitioner, Babu Ram Brahma, challenged an order dated 15.07.2022 by which the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) authorities allotted the Koupati Weekly Market to respondent no. 6, Lakhi Basumatary. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 21.06.2022. The petitioner's bid was Rs. 8,91,651/-, while respondent no. 6's bid was Rs. 5,17,500/-. The petitioner contended that his bid was the highest valid bid after two other bidders were disqualified for lacking essential documents. The BTC authorities accepted the lower bid of respondent no. 6 without providing written reasons, as stipulated in Clause 11 of the NIT. The respondent authorities argued that accepting the petitioner's higher bid would jeopardize public interest by burdening petty vendors, as the scheduled rate for the market was Rs. 3,45,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Bodoland Territorial Council authorities acted arbitrarily and illegally in accepting a lower bid over the highest valid bid for the settlement of the Koupati Weekly Market, contrary to the principles of transparency and fairness in public tenders, and in violation of Clause 11 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Clause 11 of the NIT mandates settlement with the highest bidder if documents and revenues are in order. If not, written reasons are required. The petitioner's bid was the highest valid bid, and the authorities failed to provide any reasons for rejecting it and accepting a lower bid. The amount in dispute, representing state revenue, is of paramount importance. The petitioner relied on the principle that revenue earned by the state plays a major role in settlement matters, citing Tarun Bharali vs. State of Assam & Ors. Respondents' Arguments: The BTC authorities argued that accepting the petitioner's higher bid would be detrimental to public interest, as it would shift the burden to petty vendors and consumers, given the scheduled rate of Rs. 3,45,000/-. Respondent no. 6 argued that the decision-making process, recorded in minutes of a meeting, was not challenged, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. Respondent no. 6 also raised a point about the validity of the tender process due to the requirement of a Sales Tax Clearance Certificate, which has been replaced by GST, suggesting a case for remand.