M/S. Md,S Organic vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner had been violated. It noted that the petitioner, being an artificial entity, was not entitled to the protection of rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that in contractual or commercial matters involving State instrumentalities, judicial intervention should be exercised with restraint and caution, only when there is clear arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, or mala fides. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments stressing that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and interpretation of tender documents, and courts should not interfere unless there is overwhelming public interest or perversity. The Court found no such grounds to interfere with the tender process. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. MD's Organic, a proprietorship firm registered under GST, challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.11.2019 and its corrigendum dated 27.12.2019, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Assam, for the supply of Vermicompost for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner alleged that the tender conditions were designed to reduce competition and favour vested interests, imposing irrelevant eligibility criteria. The NIT initially required an average turnover of Rs. 8 crores and experience of supplying 20,000 quintals. The corrigendum extended the deadline and increased the quantity, while reducing the annual turnover requirement to Rs. 5 crores over three years and the experience to 12,000 quintals over five years. An interim order dated 14.02.2020 restrained the issuance of work orders without court leave.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eligibility criteria, specifically the average turnover of Rs. 8 crores and the experience clause of supplying 20,000 quintals to the Assam Government, were irrelevant and designed to curb competition, thereby violating principles of fairness and transparency in the distribution of State largesse? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of public procurement and administrative law). 2. Whether the extension of the tender deadline from 06.12.2019 to 06.01.2020, via a corrigendum dated 27.12.2019, was illegal and violated the doctrine of fairness and transparency as it was issued after the original last date for submission? Petitioner's Arguments: The tender conditions were irrelevant and aimed at ousting small players like the petitioner to favour vested interests. The quality of the product was not considered, which is against public interest. The extension of the tender date after its expiry was illegal and unfair. Revenue's Arguments: The petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender as they were not eligible. The petitioner did not possess the required Sale License or FCO standard certificate on the relevant date. The petitioner also violated Clause-2 (iii) of the ITB by not having the necessary registration. Holding a certificate was mandatory, making the petitioner ineligible. The quality was addressed by Clause-2 (iv) of the ITB requiring analysis reports as per FCO standards. The extension was valid as a pre-bid meeting was held.