Gauhati High Court
Himangshu Sarkar vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 28 November, 2023
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010128402023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3466/2023
HIMANGSHU SARKAR
SON OF LATE HANGSHADHAR SARKAR,
RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4, SANTIPUR
P.O. MANGALDOI, DISTRICT- DARRANG,
ASSAM, PIN- 784125.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DARRANG
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM.
4:THE MANGALDOI MUNICIPAL BOARD
MANGALDOI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
P.O.- MANGALDOI
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM.
5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF MANGALDOI MUNICIPAL BOARD
Page No.# 2/6
MANGALDOI
P.O.- MANGALDOI
DISTRICT- DARRANG
(ASSAM)
PIN- 784125.
6:JAGADISH RAJBANGSHI
S/O- MANMOHAN RAJBANGSHI
RESIDENT OF GERIMARI
P.O.- MANGALDOI
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784125
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. B. Rahman, Advocate.
For the Respondent (s) :Mr. M. Chetia, Advocate,
Mr. H.Gupta, Advocate.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 28.11.2023
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging
the Resolution No. 1 dated 27.3.2023 and the settlement order dated
31.3.2023 issued by the Chairperson of Mangaldoi Municipal Board settling
the Mangaldoi Fish Market with the Respondent No. 6 for the period of
Page No.# 3/6
2023-24 and direct the Mangaldoi Municipal Board to make the settlement
of Mangaldoi Fish Market for the period of 2023-24 with the valid highest
bidder/the Petitioner forthwith.
2. The facts involved in the instant case as could be discerned from the
materials on record reveals that the Tender Notice was issued by the
Chairperson of Mangaldoi Municipal Board, Darrang, Mangaldoi for the
purpose of settlement of Hat/Bazar, Bus Parking, River Mahal etc under the
Mangaldoi Municipal Board for the period 2023-24 subject to fulfillment of
the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice. It reveals further from the
Tender Notice, more particularly, the Clause 7 of the Tender Notice that
the tenderers were required to enclose various certificates as stipulated
therein.
3. From a perusal of the comparative statement enclosed to the writ
petition as Annexure-E, 1t reveals that the Petitioner herein had submitted
the tender of an amount of Rs.15,84,000/- whereas the Respondent No.6
had submitted the tender of Rs. 9,04,444/-. The second highest bidder
was one Joyram Bharali who had quoted Rs.14,45,301/-. However, the
Respondent Authorities have settled the tender with the Respondent No. 6
who had quoted Rs. 9,04,444/-. It further transpires from the minutes of
the meeting held on 27.3.2023 that the Petitioner's bid was rejected on the
ground that he did not submit the GST document as well as the money
receipt of Rs. 500/-, whereas the bid of the second highest bidder i.e. Sri
Joyram Bharali was rejected on the ground that he had withdrawn the said
bid. Therefore, the 3rd highest bidder i.e. the Respondent No.6 was
Page No.# 4/6
awarded the contract. Being aggrieved by the said Resolution adopted in
the minutes of the meeting dated 27.3.2023 and the subsequent
Communication dated 31.3.2023, whereby the settlement was made in
favour of the Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner have approached this Court
by filing the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as afore stated.
4. This Court have perused the tender document, wherein at Clause
7(kha), it was stated that the GST Clearance Certificate as well as the
Income Tax Clearance Certificate are required to be submitted alongwith
the Tender document. Admittedly the said GST Clearance Certificate was
not submitted by the Petitioner alongwith his tender document.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted
that the submission of the said document is not an essential condition of
the tender and as such the Respondent Authorities ought to have taken
into account that the Petitioner had quoted a higher price than what was
quoted by the Respondent No. 6 and accordingly the tender ought to have
been awarded to the Petitioner.
6. This Court have taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, wherein the Supreme
Court at paragraph No.15 had observed that owner or the employer of the
project, having authored the tender document is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirement and interpret its documents. It
was further observed that the constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is a
Page No.# 5/6
mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the
application of the terms of the tender conditions. Further to that, the
Supreme Court also observed that though it is possible that the owner or
the employer of the project may give an interpretation to the tender
document that is not acceptable to the constitutional court but that by
itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation so given. The
said proposition was also again reiterated by the Supreme Court in the
case of M/S Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders,
Transports and Suppliers Vs. M/S New J.K. Roadways, Fleet
Owners and Transport Contractors and Ors. reported in (2021) 16
SCC 808, wherein also it was observed that the authority that authors the
tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate the
requirements and as such it should not be second-guessed by the Court in
a judicial review proceedings.
7. Taking into account the above propositions of law settled by the
Supreme Court and also further taking note of that as per Clause 7(kha), it
was a requirement that the GST Clearance Certificate was required to be
submitted which the Petitioner did not submit, this Court therefore finds no
reason to interfere with the decision taken in the minutes of the meeting
dated 27.3.2023 to settle the tender in favour of the Respondent No. 6 as
well as the settlement order dated 31.3.2023 issued by the Chairperson,
Mangaldoi Municipal Board thereby issuing the settlement order in favour
of the Respondent No. 6.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ
Page No.# 6/6
petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
