Gauhati High Court
Mohamed Mustafa vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 30 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/26
GAHC010038822020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1234/2020
MOHAMED MUSTAFA
S/O- HAJI MD. HANIF, R/O- ISLAMPUR, GUWAHATI- 781007, KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.-06.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI- 37.
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : Review.Pet./137/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
Page No.# 2/26
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
SANJIV KR. ROY
S/O- SRI LAKHINDAR RAY
R/O- SENAPATI ROAD
SILPUKHRI
GUWAHATI- 781003.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for SANJIV KR. ROY
Linked Case : WP(C)/1236/2020
MD. YASIN
S/O LATE HAJI IBRAHIM
R/O NOTBOMA
SIJUBARI
HATIGAON
GUWAHATI-781038
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
Page No.# 3/26
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI-05
------------
Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
Linked Case : Review.Pet./136/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA
S/O- HAJI MD. HANIF
R/O- ISLAMPUR
GUWAHATI- 781007.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for MOHAMMED MUSTAFA
Linked Case : Review.Pet./135/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
Page No.# 4/26
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
M/S OASIS ENTERPRISES
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT A. K. ROAD
DHIRENPARA
GUWAHATI-22
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SARFARZ ALI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for M/S OASIS ENTERPRISES
Linked Case : WP(C)/1235/2020
M/S. OASIS ENTERPRISES
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT A.K. DEB ROAD
DHIRENPARA
GUWAHATI-25
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SARFARZ ALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILD LIFE)
Page No.# 5/26
ASSAM
PANZABARI
GUWAHATI-37
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI-05
------------
Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
Linked Case : Review.Pet./139/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
SRI KISHOR SINGH
S/O- LATE RAGHU PRASAD SINGH
R/O- NOONMATI BISNU RABHA NAGAR
GUWAHATI- 781120.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for SRI KISHOR SINGH
Linked Case : Review.Pet./134/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
Page No.# 6/26
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
MD. KASAIM
S/O- LATE HAJI KAMRUDDIN
R/O- NEAR GMC MARKET
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781008.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for MD. KASAIM
Linked Case : Review.Pet./138/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
SRI RANJIT KAUSHIK
Page No.# 7/26
S/O- LATE DHIREN SABHAPANDIT
PINAKI PATH
ZOO ROAD TINIALI
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM- 781003.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for SRI RANJIT KAUSHIK
Linked Case : Review.Pet./140/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WILDLIFE)
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION
GUWAHATI- 05.
VERSUS
MD. YASIN
S/O- LATE HAJI IMBRAHIM
R/O- NOTBOMBA
SIJUBARI
HATIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781038.
------------
Advocate for : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for : MR. H NATH appearing for MD. YASIN
Page No.# 8/26
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2022
Date of Judgment : 30.08.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the
writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 1234/2020, 1235/2020, 1236/2020; WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018,
7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 as well as for the respondents in
Review Petition Nos. 134/2019, 135/2019, 136/2019, 137/2019, 139/2019 and 140/2019. Also
heard, Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent in Review Petition No. 138/2019 as well
as for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8067/2018. Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate
General, Assam appeared for the respondents in the Environment and Forest Department of the
State in all the writ petitions and also for the Review Petitioners.
2) The contentions of the writ petitioners herein are that violating the common judgment
and order dated 04.06.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo Division on
10.02.2020 issued fresh E-Tender Notice inviting online tender -- (A) in WP(C) No. 1234/2020 for
supplying Beef Meat for Zoo captive of the Assam State Zoo for a period of 1 (one) year
specifying the value of work at Rs.90,00,000/-; (B) in WP(C) No. 1235/2020 for supplying of
Vegetables and Fruits for Zoo captive of the Assam State Zoo for a period of 1 (one) year
specifying the value of work at Rs.60,00,000/- and (C) in WP(C) No. 1236/2020 for supplying of
Groceries and Other Miscellaneous items for Zoo captive of the Assam State Zoo for a period of 1
(one) year specifying the value of work at Rs.90,00,000/-; informing that the tender document
can be downloaded by the bidder from the website notified in the said Tender Notice from
10.02.2020 to 01.03.2020 where the last date of submission of bid was 02.03.2020 at 11:30 AM
and the tender shall be opened on 02.03.2020 at 03:00 PM.
3) In WP(C) No. 1234/2020 (Mohamed Mustafa -Vs- State of Assam and 2 others) , the
petitioner contended that Beef Meat have to be supplied four days in a week and Beef Liver to be
supplied twice weekly and that the said NIT dated 10.02.2020 amongst others provided in Clause
1(i) and in Clause 1(h) that the rates offered should not be more than maximum retail price and
further provided that abnormally low offered rates will be rejected. But the tender document did
not provide the maximum retail price as well as also did not provide as to what would constitute
Page No.# 9/26
abnormally low rates leaving such criteria to the subjective decision of the tendering authority
that cannot be evaluated objectively. The petitioners also urged that the estimated value of the
entire work at Rs.90,00,000/- is not feasible in comparison to the prevailing market rate as per
the tender document items of Beef Meat and Beef Liver have to be supplied for the entire year
and taking into account the prevailing market rate, those items to be supplied as provided in the
tender then the total rate of cost would exceed more than 1 Crore excluding the cost incurred in
transportation and taxation etc. thereby the NIT dated 10.02.2020 is impossible to perform at the
value estimated by the respondent authorities.
4) In WP(C) No. 1235/2020 (Oasis Enterprises -Vs- State of Assam and 2 others) , the
petitioner contended that Vegetables and Fruits for Zoo captive have to be supplied for the entire
period of one year and that the said NIT dated 10.02.2020 amongst others provided in Clause
1(i) and in Clause 1(h) that the rates offered should not be more than maximum retail price and
further, provided that abnormally low offered rates will be rejected. But the tender document did
not provide the maximum retail price as well as also did not provide as to what would constitute
abnormally low rates leaving such criteria to the subjective decision of the tendering authority
that cannot be evaluated objectively. The petitioner also urged that the estimated value of the
entire work at Rs.60,00,000/- is not feasible in comparison to the prevailing market rate as per
the tender document items of vegetables and fruits that are to be supplied for the entire year
have been clubbed together and are to be supplied together. Taking into account the prevailing
market rates of those items to be supplied as provided in the tender the petitioner stated that the
total rate of cost would exceed more than 1 Crore excluding the cost incurred in transportation
and taxation etc. thereby the NIT dated 10.02.2020 is impossible to perform at the value
estimated by the respondent authorities.
5) In WP(C) No. 1236/2020 (Md. Yasin -Vs- State of Assam and 2 others) the petitioner
contended that Groceries and other Miscellaneous items for Zoo captive have to be supplied for
the entire period of one year and that the said NIT dated 10.02.2020 amongst others provided in
Clause 1(i) and in Clause 1(h) that the rates offered should not be more than maximum retail
price and further provided that abnormally low offered rates will be rejected. But the tender
document did not provide the maximum retail price as well as also did not provide as to what
would constitute abnormally low rates leaving such criteria to the subjective decision of the
tendering authority that cannot be evaluated objectively. The petitioner also urged that the
Page No.# 10/26
estimated value of the entire work at Rs.90,00,000/- is not feasible in comparison to the
prevailing market rate as per the tender document groceries items and other miscellaneous items
that are to be supplied for the entire year have been clubbed together and are to be supplied
together. Taking into account the prevailing market rates of those items to be supplied as
provided in the tender the petitioner stated that the total rate of cost would exceed much more
than 1 Crore excluding the cost incurred in transportation and taxation etc. thereby the NIT dated
10.02.2020 is impossible to perform at the value estimated by the respondent authorities.
6) The petitioners stated that the short E-Tender dated 10.02.2020 being in violation of the
direction issued vide common judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and
other connected cases should be set aside and quashed.
7) Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities in the
Environment and Forest Department to forebear from giving effect to the said short E-Tender
dated 10.02.2020 and also prayed for stay of the said short E-Tender dated 10.02.2020. Further,
the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1234/2020 has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities in
the Environment and Forest Department to award the contract in favour of the petitioner in
respect of Meat, Fish and Egg category with the Beef items as per the NIT dated 27.07.2018 that
was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo for supply of ration item to the Zoo
captives of Assam. Similarly, the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1235/2020 has prayed for a direction to
the respondent authorities in the Environment and Forest Department to award the contract in
favour of the petitioner in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 14 under Perishable Item Category as per the
NIT dated 27.07.2018 that was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo for supply
of ration item to the Zoo captives of Assam. In the same way, the petitioner of WP(C) No.
1236/2020 has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities in the Environment and Forest
Department to award the contract in favour of the petitioner in respect of Item Nos. 59 to 63
under Grocery Items Category as per the NIT dated 27.07.2018 that was issued by the Divisional
Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo for supply of ration item to the Zoo captives of Assam.
8) The Court after considering the matters on 19.02.2020 passed an order of status quo as
on said date in respect of the said short E-Tender dated 10.02.2020.
9) Brief facts of the case is that the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO, in short), Assam State
Zoo Division (ASZ Div., in short) on 26.05.2017 issued tender for supply of Food Stuff for the Zoo
captives of Assam State Zoo, Guwahati under various ration groups for the year 2017-2018. The
Page No.# 11/26
petitioners in terms of the said tender dated 26.05.2017 were awarded contracts for supply of
Food Stuff for different groups and the quantity of food stuff to be supplied were as per the terms
of the contract. But from November, 2017, quantities of Food Stuff to be supplied by the
contractors for consumption by Zoo captives were allegedly reduced. The contractors were
aggrieved by the unilateral decision of the DFO, ASZ Div. in reducing the quantity of Food Stuff
without holding any discussion with them and for such action, the contractors concerned alleged
that they suffered loss and in that process it adversely affected the health of the Zoo captives.
10) The contractors approached the DFO, ASZ Div., requesting him to accept supply of Food
Stuff as per quantity specified in the NIT. As there was no response, the contractors approached
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) by submitting representation dated
13.12.2017 followed by another representation dated 12.06.2018. The Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests (Wildlife) on 29.06.2018 directed the DFO, ASZ Div. to report within a period of one
week after examining the issue from the perspective of perceived loss by contractors, tender
details, legal angle and animal management. While those representations of the contractors were
pending for the decision by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), the DFO, ASZ Div.
on 27.07.2018 issued fresh NIT for supplying of Food Stuff materials for Zoo captives of the
Assam State Zoo for a period of one year.
11) In the said circumstances, those contractors twelve in numbers, joined together and as
the petitioners preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5723/2018 (Sanjib Roy and 11 Others
Vs. State of Assam and 2 Others) seeking a direction to the respondent authorities in the
Environment and Forest Department of the State not to proceed with the Notice Inviting Tender
(NIT) dated 27.07.2018 published in the newspaper on 31.07.2018, alleging the grounds noted
above and contending further that without addressing their grievances, the DFO, ASZ Div could
not have issued the said fresh NIT dated 27.07.2018.
12) Though by order dated 21.08.2018, the Court disposed of said WP(C) No. 5723/2018
without interfering with the said NIT dated 27.07.2018, holding that non-consideration of
grievances of the tenderers (contractors/petitioners) of the previous year cannot be a ground for
declaring the subsequent NIT null and void, but at the same time, the Court viewed that the
grievances of the petitioners as forwarded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife)
in his letter dated 29.06.2018 needs to be examined by the DFO, ASZ Div. pointing out that as in
the new NIT dated 27.07.2018 that was under challenge, the tendering authority had clarified in
Page No.# 12/26
Clause 2(b) that the quantities specified in the tender form are for tender purpose only and that
represents the basis of unit for ease of pricing where actual quantity may vary between minimum
annual quantity to maximum annual quantity; therefore, in that light, the DFO, ASZ Div. was
directed to take a decision on the grievances of the petitioners/aggrieved contractors as
forwarded to him by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) on 29.06.2018, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order.
13) The present petitioners were among those twelve petitioners of WP(C) No. 5723/2018
and they submitted the certified copy of the said order dated 21.08.2018 before the authorities in
the Environment and Forest Department concerned and also participated in the tender process
pertaining to the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 with regard to the supply of Food Stuff to the Zoo
captive of the Assam State Zoo for the year 2018-2019.
14) By letter dated 31.08.2018, the DFO, ASZ, Div informed the contractors/settlement
holders of the Food Stuff to the Zoo captive of the Assam State Zoo of the year 2017-2018
(pursuant to the NIT dated 12.06.2017) including the petitioners that as the fresh tender for
Ration supply for the year 2018-2019 has not been finalized, therefore, as per tender Clause 12,
the old settlement holders were requested to continue the Ration supply till final settlement of
new tender. By the said letter, the DFO, ASZ, Div also requested those ration suppliers including
the petitioners to note that the terms and conditions laid down in the concerned tender notice, an
agreement made with them would remain same and no enhancement of rates will be considered
under any circumstances.
15) With regard to the said NIT dated 27.07.2018, the authorities in the Environment and
Forest Department concerned on 29.08.2018 opened the bids submitted by the tenderers
including that of the petitioners wherein the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1234/2020 was found to be
the L1 bidder in respect of Beef under the Meat, Fish and Egg category; petitioner of WP(C) No.
1235/2020 was found to be the L1 bidder in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 14 under the category of
Perishable items and the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1236/2020 was found to be the L1 bidder in
respect of item Nos. 59 to 63 under Grocery items category in respect of materials for the Zoo
captives pertaining to the year 2018-2019. By Notice dated 12.10.2018, the DFO, ASZ Div.
informed that due to technical reasons, the tender for supply of ration and materials for the Zoo
captives for the year 2018-2019 has been cancelled, informing further that the next date for
retender will be issued shortly.
Page No.# 13/26
16) Subsequently the said DFO, ASZ Div. on 24.10.2018, 25.10.2018 and 28.10.2018 issued
four separate E-Tender notices inviting online bids for supply of (i) Mutton/Chicken/Egg for a
period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.42,00,000/-; (ii) Beef for a
period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.1,25,00,000/-; (iii) Fodder
Grass for a period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.43,00,000/- and
(iv) Tree Leaves for a period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at
Rs.35,00,000/-.
17) Being aggrieved, the petitioners and others preferred their individual writ petitions being
WP(C) No. 7668/2018 (Md. Yasin Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors), WP(C) No. 7664/2018 (Sanjiv
Kumar Roy Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors), WP(C) No. 7665/2018 (Kasaim Vs. The State of
Assam & 2 Ors.), WP(C) No. 7669/2018 (M/S. Oasis Enterprise a Proprietorship Firm Vs. The
State of Assam & 2 Ors ), WP(C) No. 7675/2018 (Kishor Singh Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.),
WP(C) No. 7676/2018 (Mohamed Mustafa Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors .) and WP(C) No.
8067/2018 (Ranjit Kaushik Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors).
18) The Court on 09.11.2018, issued notice in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and passed an interim
order to the effect that arrangement as on 09.11.2018 would continue and identical orders dated
09.11.2018 were passed in respect of the other six Writ Petitions, noted above.
19) Parties to those proceedings exchanged their affidavits and the Court after considering
the entire aspect of the matter and hearing the parties, disposed of said WP(C) Nos. 7668/2018
and other connected above noted six writ petitions, by common judgment and order dated
04.06.2019 with the following directions and observations ―
"20. Short point for consideration is whether decision of respondent No.3 to cancel the
tender process pursuant to NIT dated 27.07.2018 is legal and valid. Validity of the
consequential e-tender notice would be dependent upon the answer to this question.
21. As could be seen from the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, it is the stand of
respondent No.3 that though bids of the petitioners were L1, those rates were not above
the threshold price mentioned in the tender notice and therefore having regard to Clause
28 of the NIT dated 27.07.2018, tender process was cancelled.
22. Adverting to the impugned order dated 12.10.2018, it is seen that respondent No.3
had cancelled the tender process "due to technical reasons".
23. At this stage, it would be apposite to advert to Clause 28 of the NIT. Clause 28 is
extracted hereunder:- "28. (a). If the rate quoted by the tenderer exceeds the rates
Page No.# 14/26
given by Agriculture Marketing and GMC, whichever is lower, by a margin of 10% in case
of perishable goods and by 5% in case of all other goods, will be outrightly rejected. (b)
For items where the Agriculture and GMC rates are not available, the quoted rate should
not exceed the market survey rate by a margin of 10% in case of perishable goods and
by 5% in case of all other goods, else it will be out rightly rejected. (c) For items where
the reference rate is not available, the rates should be reasonable and genuine. If the
rates are too high it will not be considered for acceptance."
24. As per Sub-Clause (a), if the rate quoted by the tenderer exceeds the rates given by
Agricultural Marketing (Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board) and GMC whichever is
lower by a margin of 10% in case of perishable goods and by 5% in case of other goods,
such tender would be out rightly rejected. Finally, for items where reference rate is not
available, rate should be reasonable and genuine. If the rates are high, it will not be
considered for acceptance.
25. Admittedly, rates offered by petitioners are L1. Only thing respondent No.3 (the
Divisional Forest Officer; Assam State Zoo) has stated in the counter affidavit is that L1
rates were above the fixed threshold price mentioned in the tender notice dated
27.07.2018 without divulging any details. What were the threshold prices for each of the
items and how L1 rates were found to be in excess of the threshold prices have not been
disclosed. In the instant case, tenders submitted by petitioners were all opened and
evaluation continued till 30.08.2018.
26. There is sanctity attached to a tender process, more so, when it is conducted by the
State or by instrumentalities of the State. While certain play in the joints has to be
provided to the tendering authority, the State and its instrumentalities cannot act like a
private citizen in matters of tenders and contracts. It is bound to act in a fair and
judicious manner. Cancellation of a tender process is a serious and drastic measure
which should be resorted to only as the last resort. After opening of the tenders and after
evaluation of the tender papers that too after finalizing L1 bids, it is not open to
respondent No.3 to cancel the tender process by simply citing 'due to technical reasons'
which is vague and bald.
27. In the affidavit also, respondent No.3 has not indicated how and in what manner L1
bids are above the threshold price.
28. In the light of the above, impugned cancellation order dated 12.10.2018 and
consequential e-tender notices cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside and
quashed.
29. Matter is remanded back to the higher authority of respondent No.2 [the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife)] who shall now finalise the tenders in terms of the
NIT dated 27.07.2018. This shall be done within a period of 30 days from the date of
Page No.# 15/26
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
30. All the writ petitions are allowed but there shall be no order as to costs."
20) As the respondents in the Environment and Forest Department of the State did not
comply with the said common judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 within the time so specified,
the petitioner of WP(C) No. 7669/2018 ( M/S. Oasis Enterprise a Proprietorship Firm Vs. The State
of Assam & 2 Ors) filed a contempt case being Cont. Cas(C) No. 387/2019 against the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Assam, wherein notice was issued on 22.07.2019.
21) The State Government in the Environment and Forest Department filed seven Review
Petitions being Review Pet. Nos. 134/2019 to 140/2019 against the said common judgment and
order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other connected six WP(C) Nos.
7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 stating
that inspite of providing the details in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the
Environment and Forest Department in those writ petitions, the Court in the said order dated
04.06.2019 found fault with the respondents for not divulging details of the threshold price of
each of the items and as to how L1 rates were found to be in excess of the threshold price,
wherein the Court after considering the matters on 13.09.2019 issued notice to the
respondents/i.e., the writ petitioners and that those writ petitions are pending for consideration.
22) During the pendency of said Cont. Cas(C) No. 387/2019 and the Review Petitions, noted
above, the Divisional Forest Officer; Assam State Zoo, issued the impugned short E-Tender Notice
dated 10.02.2020 involved in these writ petitions.
23) Considering the same, the Court by order dated 19.02.2020 passed the order of status
quo in respect of the Tender process under short E-Tender Notice dated 10.02.2020 as on the
said date, i.e., 19.02.2020.
24) Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in the
Environment and Forest Department of the State submitted that prior to deciding the writ
petitions, the Review Pet. Nos. 134/2019 to 140/2019 filed by the State Government in the
Environment and Forest Department against the said common judgment and order dated
04.06.2019 passed in writ petitions WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018,
7676/2018 and 8067/2018 need to be considered first and disposed of before considering the
present writ petitions. Mr. Goswami also stated that all the settlement holders in pursuance of the
NIT dated 12.06.2017, including the petitioners, taking the advantage of the letter of the DFO,
Page No.# 16/26
Assam State Zoo Division dated 31.08.2018 are continuing to supply Food Stuff and Ration items
to the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo under the respective groups as the tender process
could not be finalised. Mr. Goswami also stated that because of the interim orders of the Court,
the petitioners are supplying Vegetables & Fruits; Groceries & other Miscellaneous Items and Beef
Meat for the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo since 2017.
25) From the writ petitions of the petitioners, it is seen that they are aggrieved by the
issuance of short E-Tender Notice dated 10.02.2020 issued by the DFO, Assam State Zoo Division
for supplying of Food Stuff to the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo for a period of one year,
while the Review Petitions, noted above, are pending for consideration where there is no stay
with regard to the common judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in writ petitions WP(C)
Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018.
26) Considering the above, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and as agreed
by the learned counsels for the parties, the Court decided to consider the Review Petition Nos.
134/2019 to 140/2019, noted above, at first and thereafter, to decide the relevant writ petitions.
27) In the Review petitions ―
Review Pet. No. 134/2019 in WP(C) Nos. 7665/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors Vs.
Sanjiv Kumar Roy), Review Pet. No 135/2019 in WP(C) No. 7669/2018 (The State of Assam & 2
Ors. Vs. M/S. Oasis Enterprise a Proprietorship Firm) , Review Pet. No 136/2019 in WP(C) No.
7676/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Mohamed Mustafa) , Review Pet. No 137/2019 in
WP(C) No. 7664/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Kumar Roy) , Review Pet. No
138/2019 in WP(C) No. 8067/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Ranjit Kaushik) , Review Pet.
No 139/2019 in WP(C) No. 7675/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Kishor Singh) and Review
Pet. No 140/2019 in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Md. Yasin), all filed
by the State of Assam in the Environment and Forest Department against the common judgment
and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in writ petition WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other connected
writ petitions WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and
8067/2018.
28) Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State
Government in the Environment and Forest Department, i.e., review petitioners, brought to the
notice of the Court that in pursuance of the NIT dated 27.07.2018 issued by the Divisional Forest
Page No.# 17/26
Officer, Assam State Zoo Division for supply of Rations and Materials to the zoo captives of the
Assam State Zoo for the year 2018-2019, the writ petitioners participated in the said Tender
process by submitting their respective Tenders/Bids. Though the rates quoted by the petitioners
in their respective Bids were found to be the lowest amongst the other bidders/tenderers
participated in the said tender process, but the rates quoted by the petitioners were found to be
above the threshold price/agricultural marketing price as specified in the said NIT dated
27.07.2018 and for the said reason, the price quoted by the petitioners in their respective Bids
being in contravention of Clause 28 of the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 the Divisional Forest Officer,
Assam State Zoo Division (respondent No.3 in the writ petitions) by order issued under
No.Z/Ration & Materials/ A.S.Zoo/1679-84 dated 12.10.2018, cancelled the said NIT dated
27.07.2018 due to technical reasons with the information that the next date for re-tender will be
issued shortly. Accordingly, the said DFO, ASZ Div. on 24.10.2018, 25.10.2018 and 28.10.2018
issued four separate E-Tender Notices inviting online bids for supply of (i) Mutton/Chicken/Egg for
a period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.42,00,000/-; (ii) Beef for a
period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.1,25,00,000/-; (iii) Fodder
Grass for a period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at Rs.43,00,000/- and
(iv) Tree Leaves for a period of 1 (one) year with the estimated value of the contract at
Rs.35,00,000/-.
29) The said order dated 12.10.2018 cancelling the NIT dated 27.07.2018 for technical
reasons and the subsequent E-Tender Notices issued on 24.10.2018, 25.10.2018 and 28.10.2018
for supply of Rations and Materials to the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo that were issued
by the DFO, ASZ Div. were challenged in WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7668/2018,
7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 preferred by the writ petitioners.
30) Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the State also placed that in
his common counter affidavit filed in WP(C) Nos. 7668/2018 and other connected writ petitions,
noted above, the DFO, ASZ Div. (respondent No.3 in those writ petitions) stated the ground and
the reasons for cancelling the NIT dated 27.07.2018 due to technical reasons.
31) Mr. Goswami for the review petitioners stated that the Hon'ble Court by the common
judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other connected six
writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and
8067/2018 while setting aside the order dated 12.10.2018 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Assam
Page No.# 18/26
State Zoo Division, by which the said DFO cancelled the NIT dated 27.07.2018 due to technical
reasons; on the ground that although the writ petitioners took the plea that the rates quoted by
them were above the threshold price mentioned in the NIT dated 27.07.2018, but the details
thereof were not divulged by the said DFO while cancelling the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 and
also on the ground that the threshold price for each of the items as well as how the L1 rates were
found to be excess of the threshold prices, were not disclosed.
32) Mr. Goswami stated that in the terms of Clause 28 of the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 the
rates given by the Agricultural Marketing were specified therein and that the rates quoted by the
writ petitioners were above the said threshold of the Agricultural Marketing which were not
denied by the writ petitioners and for that an apparent error has crept in the common judgment
and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2028 and other connected six writ
petitions, WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018.
33) For the review petitioners Mr. Goswami also submitted that though the Divisional Forest
Officer, Assam State Zoo Division cancelled the NIT dated 27.07.2018 mentioning as "due to
technical reasons", but in the affidavit filed by the said Divisional Forest Officer in those writ
petitions, specifically stated that the rates of the Food Stuff for the captive animals of the Assam
State Zoo quoted by the petitioners as bidders pursuant to the NIT dated 27.07.2018 were found
to have exceeded the rates given by the Agricultural Marketing and GMC (Gauhati Municipal
Corporation) i.e., the threshold price as mentioned in the said NIT dated 27.07.2018. Mr. Goswami
submitted that the Hon'ble Court while allowing those seven writ petitions by the common
judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 failed to appreciate the specific reasons stated by the said
DFO in the said common affidavit.
34) In support of his argument Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General placed reliance
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of -- CIT -Vs- Saurashtra Kutch
Stock Exchange Ltd., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 171, M.M. Thomas -Vs- State of Kerala, reported
in (2000) 1 SCC 666, State of Orissa -Vs- Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, U.P.
State Road Transport Corpn. -Vs- Mohd. Ismail, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 239, Satyendra Singh
-Vs- Saroj Rani, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 471. On the other hand, Mr. Das learned Sr. Advocate
relied on Delhi Admn. -Vs- Gurdip Singh Uban, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 296 and Jain Studios
Ltd. -Vs- Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 501. Perused and considered the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court placed by the parties.
Page No.# 19/26
35) Perused the records of the WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018,
7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018. It is seen from the affidavit of the Divisional Forest
Officer, Assam State Zoo Division filed on 26.02.2019 in WP(C) No. 7668/2018, which was
common for other six writ petitions, noted above, contained the tender notice dated 26.05.2017
issued by the DFO, ASZ Div. for supply of Food Stuff to the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo
for the year 2017-2018 under Group "A to P" along with Appendix and other relevant documents
were annexed as Annexure-I and the agreement for supply of Food Stuff to the animals and birds
of the Assam State Zoo during 2017-2018 was annexed as Annexure-II.
36) Similarly, from the said affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Div. filed on 26.02.2019, it is seen that
the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 relating to supply of Ration and Materials to the Zoo captives of
the Assam State Zoo for the year 2018-19 contained the relevant Tender Notice, all the
Appendixes and other necessary documents including Annexure-A were annexed as Annexure-III
to the said affidavit.
37) From the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 and the Tender Notice issued by the DFO, ASZ
Division annexed to the said affidavit as Annexure-III, noted above, it is seen that the same
contained all together 32 Clauses with various Appendixes like, Tender Form, Form of Declaration,
Annexure-A (noted above). Clause 28 of the Tender Notice dated 27.07.2018 issued by the DFO,
ASZ Division along with the said NIT of 27.07.2018 (Annexure-III to the said affidavit) stipulates
as follows:-
28. (a) If the rate quoted by the tenderer exceeds the rates given by Agriculture
Marketing and GMC, whichever is lower, by a margin of 10% in case of perishable
goods (as given in Annexure-A) and by 5 percent in case of all other goods, will be
out rightly rejected.
(b) For items where the Agriculture and GMC rates are not available, the quoted rate
should not exceed the Market survey rate by a margin of 10% in case of perishable
goods (as given in Annexure-A) and by 5 percent in case of all other goods, else it
will be out rightly rejected.
(c) For items where the reference rate is not available, the rates should be
reasonable and genuine. If the rates are too high it will not be considered for
acceptance.
38) From the said Annexure-III the Tender Notice dated 27.07.2018 issued by the DFO, ASZ
Page No.# 20/26
Div. annexed to the said affidavit, it is seen that the Annexure-A of the said Tender Notice dated
27.07.2018 was the Item wise List of Perishable Items; List of Grocery Items; List of Meat, Fish &
Egg Items; List of Fodder Items and List of Miscellaneous Items containing ― (i) Serial Number,
(ii) Names of Items, (iii) Unit, (iv) Maximum Quantity per annum, (v) Minimum Quantity per
annum, (vi) Approximate Daily Requirement, (vii) Agriculture (Marketing) Rate (in Rupees), (viii)
G.M.C. Rate (in Rupees), (ix) Market Survey Rate of Assam State Zoo Committee (in Rupees), (x)
Rate Offered for a year (in Rupees) and (xi) Remarks, where against the each items (a)
Agriculture (Marketing) Rate (in Rupees), (b) G.M.C. Rate (in Rupees), (c) Market Survey Rate of
Assam State Zoo Committee (in Rupees), and (d) Remarks were specified.
39) Further, on perusal of the said affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Div. filed on 26.02.2019, it is
seen that Annexure-IX to the said affidavit was the list of Comparison Rate of the Lowest Offered
Rate with the Threshold Rate as per the NIT dated 27.07.2018 of Assam State Zoo, that contained
(i) Serial Number, (ii) Tender Item Serial Number, (iii) Name of Item, (iv) Threshold Price (in
Rupees), (v) Lowest Rate offered (in Rupees), (vi) Lowest Rate offered by and (vii) Remarks that
was duly signed by the Committee of vie Evaluating Officers consisting of (i) Assistant
Conservator of Forests, Assam State Zoo, (ii) Forest Range Officer, Zoo Headquarter Range, (iii)
Assistant Engineer, Assam State Zoo, (iv) Technical Assistant, Assam State Zoo and (v) Junior
Assistant, Assam State Zoo, that was countersigned by the DFO, Assam State Zoo Division.
40) From the said Annexure-IX of the affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Division, it is seen that after
verification of the Lowest Rate quoted by each of the Tenderers/Bidders, including the petitioners,
offered against each of the items in pursuance of the said NIT dated 27.07.2018 comparing with
that of the Threshold Price (in rupees) that was Notified in the NIT dated 27.07.2018, the
Evaluation Committee found such quoted/offered price by each of the Tenderer/Bidder as "Above
Acceptable Rate" or "Above Threshold Price" or "Below Threshold Price", as the case may be and
accordingly specified under the Remark column against each items, where the Threshold Price
was calculated at the rate of 10% of the base price of Agricultural produce and 5% of the rest of
the items.
41) Moreover, from the said Annexure-IX of the affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Division, it is seen
that the concerned Evaluation Committee considered Item wise Lowest Rate offered/quoted by
the bidders/tenderers including the petitioners and compared the same with the Threshold Rate
as per the said NIT dated 27.07.2018. As such, the petitioners of those WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018,
Page No.# 21/26
7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 were fully aware as to
how the concerned Evaluation Committee found their Item Wise Quoted Rate, though L1 rate, but
were "Above Acceptable Rate" or "Above Threshold Price" or "Below Threshold Price" after
comparing with the Threshold Rate in terms of the said NIT dated 27.07.2018.
42) From the records of those writ petitions, it is seen that the writ petitioners not only filed
their respective replies against the said affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Div. that was filed on
26.02.2019 but also replied against the finding of the comparison of the price offered by them
against the items in their respective tenders with that of the Threshold Price of those items as
was determined by the concerned Evaluation Committee.
43) It is seen that though in the Annexure-A to the Tender Notice dated 27.07.2018 where
Threshold Price (in rupees), the G.M.C. Price of the items (in rupees), price of the Marketing
Survey Rate of the Assam State Zoo Committee (in rupees) and Remarks were specified and
further in the Annexure-IX to the said affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Div. that was the comparison of
the lowest rate offered against each items by the bidders/ tenderers including the petitioners in
pursuance of the said NIT with that of the Threshold Rate as per the NIT dated 27.07.2018 of the
Assam State Zoo where Threshold Rate was calculated at the rate of 10% of the base price of
Agricultural produce and 5% of the rest of the items were also specified but it is found that the
Court in the said common order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other
connected six writ petitions came to the finding that -- " in the affidavit filed by the Divisional
Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo Division though stated that L1 rates were above the fixed
Threshold Price mentioned in the Tender Notice dated 27.07.2018, but said finding was without
divulging any details". Further, in the said common order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No.
7668/2018 the Court also observed that -- " the DFO, ASZ Division, in the said affidavit did not
indicate how in what manner L1 bids were above the threshold price ".
44) It is well settled that The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 is very limited Review proceeding is strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the power of review under Order
47 Rule 1 of the CPC is very limited. The power of review is required to be exercised only if there
is a mistake or on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other
ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on
mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of rejoining on points
Page No.# 22/26
where there may conceivably be two options.
45) In the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde -Vs- Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale,
reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as to what constitutes an error
apparent on the face of the record, which is as follows -
"An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on
points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-
evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and
complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari
according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a
writ."
46) With regard to the inherent powers of the High Court to review its order under Article 226
of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo
Singh -Vs- State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 (pg.1911, para-8) have held that --
Nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising the power of
review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
47) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the concept of review, in the case of
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. -Vs- State of A.P., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 opined that --
"11. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision
is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this
furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any
great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate
argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law
which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions
entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would
be made out."
48) In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma -Vs- Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4
SCC 389 (pg. 390, para-3), Hon'ble Supreme Court following the decision of Shivdeo Singh
(supra) observed as follows:
"3. ... It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh (supra) there is nothing
in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power
of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage
of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
Page No.# 23/26
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be
exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the
review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it
may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be
the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with
appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court."
49) From the above and on careful perusal of the impugned common judgment dated
04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other connected six writ petitions, noted above,
it is seen that the annexures made available in the affidavit of the respondent Environment and
Forest Department filed by the DFO, ASZ Div. including the Annexure-A, a part of the Tender
Document dated 27.07.2018, containing the list of perishable items, list of grocery items, list of
meat, fish and egg items, list of fodder items, list of miscellaneous items, with Agriculture
Marketing Rate in Rupees, GMC Rate in Rupees, Markets Survey Rate of Assam State Zoo
Committee in Rupees including maximum quantity per annum, minimum quantity per annum,
approximate daily requirement, which the petitioners were fully aware of, was left out of
consideration.
50) In the Annexure-9 to the said common affidavit of the DFO, ASZ Div. filed on 26.02.2019
in WP(C) No. 7668/2018, it is seen that the evaluating committee compared the rates of the
lowest rate offered by the bidders including the petitioners with the Threshold Rate as per the
NIT dated 27.07.2018 issued by the DFO, ASZ Div. on 27.07.2018, as specified in the said
Annexure-A of the Tender Document dated 27.07.2018 and as such, came to the finding that the
rates quoted by the bidders/petitioners are either above Threshold Price or below the same, as
the case may be. On that count, the authorities concerned i.e., the DFO, ASZ Div. by Notice dated
12.10.2018, cancelled the tender for supply of Ration and Materials for the Zoo captives for the
year 2018-19 on technical reasons indicating that the next date of retender would be issued
shortly. Accordingly, the said DFO, ASZ Div. on 25.10.2018 re-issued four tenders for supply of
Ration and Materials for the Zoo captives for one year. This aspect was escaped from
consideration in the common judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No.
7668/2018 and other connected cases, noted above.
Page No.# 24/26
51) It is seen that the relevant documents though available pertaining to the decision making
process in determining the Threshold Price either above of it or below did not figure in said
common judgment dated 04.06.2019 though the petitioners in their reply affidavits answered to
such finding of the Committee concerned and those documents were missed out.
52) After consideration of the entire matter, at a mere glance, this Court found that the
Court while issuing the common order dated 04.06.2019 in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and other
connected cases, those relevant documents, particularly Annexure-A of the Tender Documents of
the NIT dated 27.07.2018 together with Annexure-IX of the common Affidavit filed by the DFO,
ASZ Div. in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 were left out and the said error is self evident.
53) When such self evident error comes to the notice of the Court and if it is not rectified in
exercise of the power of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction of recall, which is a facet of plenary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would be grave miscarriage of
justice. The Court is of the view that said non-consideration of the relevant documents while
considering the matter and issuing the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is a clear case of an
error apparent on the face of the records.
54) For the reasons above, the order dated 04.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7668/2018 and
other connected six writ petitions WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018,
7676/2018 and 8067/2018 is reviewed and accordingly, recalled. Hence, the Review Petition Nos.
134/2019 to 140/2019, noted above, are allowed.
55) In the seven Writ Petitions, WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7668/2018,
7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 --
In view of the order passed today in the connected seven Review Petition Nos. 134/2019 to
140/2019, noted above, the common order passed earlier on 04.06.2019 in these writ petitions
are hereby recalled.
56) The NIT dated 27.07.2018 issued by the DFO, ASZ Division pertaining to supply of ration
and materials for the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo at Guwahati was for the period from
2018 to 2019, that was only for a period of one year, which was terminated by the notice dated
12.10.2018 issued by the DFO, ASZ Div. and the period of tender as specified in said NIT dated
27.07.2018 had expired long back. Further, the subsequent Re-tender notice being NIT Nos.
Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1691, Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1692, Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1693,
Page No.# 25/26
Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1694, Z/RATION/ASZ/ 2018-19/1695, Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1696,
Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1697 and Z/RATION/ASZ/2018-19/1698 all dated 24.10.2018 issued by
the DFO, ASZ Div., published in the news papers on 25.10.2018, for supply of Vegetables, Fruits,
Grocery items, Fish, Mutton/Chicken/Egg, Beef, Fodder Grass and Tree Leaves, respectively, for
the Zoo captives of the Assam State Zoo that was for a period of one year, have also expired.
57) In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioners made in those WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018,
7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018, 7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 have become
infructuous.
58) With regard to the three Writ Petitions WP(C) Nos. 1234/2020, 1235/2020
and 1236/2020 --
The impugned short E-Tender Notices under Nos. (i) Z/RATION/ASZ/2020/335, (ii)
Z/RATION/ASZ/2020/336 and (iii) Z/RATION/ASZ/2020/337 for supply of (a) Vegetables and
Fruits, (b) Groceries and other Miscellaneous Items and (c) Beef Meat, respectively, for the Zoo
captives of the Assam State Zoo that was for a period of one year for the Financial Year 2020-
2021, i.e., From 1st April, 2020 to 31st March, 2021 involved in these WP(C) Nos. 1234/2020,
1235/2020 and 1236/2020 have already expired. As such, these three writ petitions have also
become infructuous.
59) For the reasons above, WP(C) Nos. 7664/2018, 7665/2018, 7668/2018, 7669/2018,
7675/2018, 7676/2018 and 8067/2018 as well as WP(C) Nos. 1234/2020, 1235/2020 and
1236/2020 as have become infructuous, since the respective tender period have expired long
back, those were dismissed.
60) The respondent authorities in the Environment and Forest Department shall do the
needful for supply of all perishable items of Vegetables and Fruits; Grocery items; Fodder items;
Miscellaneous items and Fish/Mutton/Chicken/Egg/Beef items etc. for the Zoo captives of the
Assam State Zoo by way of new tender process, forthwith.
61) In view of the above, the interim order passed earlier in or any of these cases, presently in
force, shall stand vacated.
JUDGE
Page No.# 26/26
Comparing Assistant
