Ranjit Baruah vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Following the liberty granted by the Court on 20.12.2017 to finalize the process based on the 4th tender notice dated 16.10.2017, a Diet Committee Meeting was held on 22.06.2018. In this meeting, rates were negotiated with the petitioner, and the Diet Tender Committee decided to award the outsourcing of dietary services for AMCH, Dibrugarh to the petitioner at Rs. 120 + GST per patient per day. The petitioner, in turn, gave an undertaking to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, an office order was issued on 07.07.2018 by the Superintendent, AMCH, stating that the dietary service would be awarded to the petitioner upon withdrawal of the writ petition. In light of these developments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was closed on withdrawal. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved through an amicable settlement facilitated by the Court's interim order and subsequent actions of the parties.

Facts

This writ petition was filed by Ranjit Baruah, proprietor of M/s Ranjit Baruah, challenging the decision of the authorities of Assam Medical College and Hospital (AMCH), Dibrugarh to invite a fresh tender for outsourcing dietary services for indoor patients. The petitioner's technical bid was found responsive in the 4th NIT dated 16.10.2017, while other bidders' bids were defective. The petitioner expected the work order as the sole qualified bidder. However, the authorities decided to proceed with a 5th tender. The Court, in an interim order dated 20.12.2017, restrained the issuance of the 5th tender notice and permitted the authorities to finalize the process based on the 4th tender notice. Subsequently, following the Court's liberty, a decision was taken in a Diet Committee Meeting on 22.06.2018 to negotiate rates with the petitioner. The Diet Tender Committee decided to award the service to the petitioner at Rs. 120 + GST per patient per day. The petitioner provided an undertaking to withdraw the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the authorities acted arbitrarily and against Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines by deciding to issue a 5th tender notice when the petitioner's technical bid was responsive in the 4th tender and other bids were defective? 2. Whether the petitioner, as the sole responsive bidder in the 4th tender, was entitled to be awarded the contract? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the authorities' decision to go for a 5th tender process was questionable, especially when repeated tenders failed to elicit a proper response. They relied on Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, which suggest that a contract can be finalized with the only qualified tenderer in such circumstances. The petitioner contended that their technical bid was responsive in the 4th NIT, while others were defective, making them the only eligible bidder. Contentions of the Respondent: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents beyond their acceptance of notice. However, their actions in proceeding with further tender processes implicitly suggest a disagreement with the petitioner's claim.