Gauhati High Court
). Manju Jalan W/O- Late Ramautar Jalan vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 2 July, 2024
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010132762024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/217/2024
M/S ASSAM SUPPLY SYNDICATE
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT - KRISHNA NAGAR, CHATRIBARI ROAD,
GUWAHATI-01, ASSAM, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM REP. BY ITS PARTNERS
1). MANJU JALAN W/O- LATE RAMAUTAR JALAN, 2). ANURAG JALAN,
S/O- LATE RAMAUTAR JALAN, 3). CHIRAG JALAN S/O- LATE RAMAUTAR
JALAN, ALL ARE R/O- FLAT NO-7903, BLOCK -A, NEHA APARTMENT, S.J
ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-01, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF
RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-01
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION
N.F RAILWAY
OPP. SANJEEVANI HOSPITAL
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
3:TENDER COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION
N.F RAILWAY
OPP. SANJEEVANI HOSPITAL
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : K AGARWAL
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
02.07.2024
[Soumitra Saikia, J]
Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Agarwal,
learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3134/2024. The primary
grievance urged in this appeal is that the appellant's bids submitted in
pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) being Bid No.
GEM/2024/B/4810091 dated 22.03.2024 issued by the Railways was rejected on
the ground that the documents which were submitted in support of the
execution of the works undertaken by the entity/bidder pertain to the period
when the entity was a sole proprietorship. Subsequently, with effect from
01.11.2023, the sole proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership firm
and thereafter, the same was reconstituted in the year 2024. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents did not take into account
this aspect of the matter that the works executed by the entity was not
questioned or disputed and only the nature of the entity was changed from the
Page No.# 3/4
proprietorship firm to a partnership firm. He relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in New Horizons Limited and Another vs. Union of
India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 and submits that the Court can lift the veil
where it is found necessary and can look into the experience of the work
executed by any of the entities in the case of joint ventures. In the present
tender process the only question to be decided is whether the entity in its
capacity as a proprietorship firm has actually executed the work,
notwithstanding the fact that it has been reconstituted as a partnership firm.
The documents which were submitted in terms of the Provisions of the NIT, the
nature of clarification subsequently frustrated was not considered in the proper
perspective and accordingly, was rejected. It is further submitted that before the
price tendered by the appellant and the other bidders, there is a difference of
about Rs.20,00,00,000/-. The appellant has quoted a price well below the price
quoted by other bidders. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the
learned Single Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter while passing of
the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2024 in WP(C) No.3134/2024
dismissing the writ petition. Being aggrieved, this writ appeal has been
preferred. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that since no work
order has been issued, interim protection as prayed for may be granted.
Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC appearing for the Railways submits that the
Page No.# 4/4
appellant was rejected from the technical bid and pursuant to that the
authorities had proceeded to short list the bidders. However, the shortlisted
bidders are not arrayed as a party and therefore, at this stage, there is no merit
in the appeal and the same should be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, let Notice be issued,
Returnable on 15.07.2024.
Issue Notice also on the interim prayer, returnable on 15.07.2024.
The respondents shall produce records pertaining to the bid in question
before the Court for necessary perusal, if need so arises.
Learned counsel for the appellant shall furnish sufficient extra copies to Ms.
R. Devi during the course of the day.
Till the next returnable date, the respondents will not proceed to issue the
work order to the short listed tenderer. This interim order is granted on the
basis of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that
there is a difference of Rs.20,00,00,000/- in the bid submitted by the appellant.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
