Gauhati High Court
WA/2/2025 on 20 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010278292024
2025:GAU-AS:557-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/2/2025
JYOTISH DAS,
S/O SRI SATISH DAS,
VILLAGE BAREGAON, PS AND PO SORBHOG,
DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781317.
..... Appellant
- VERSUS-
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
A BLOCK GROUND FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TECHNICAL),
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
55 RAJGARH, MAIN ROAD, GUWAHATI 781003.
3:SRI NARAYAN JYOTI TALUKDAR @ SRI NAYAN JYOTI TALUKDAR,
SORBHOG, PO AND PS SORBHOG,
DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781317.
..... Respondents
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Appellant : Md. S. Hoque, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R.B. Bora, Junior Government Advocate, Assam for
respondent Nos.1 to 2.
Page No.# 2/6
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 20.01.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
The instant writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved
with the judgment and order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.6372/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a contractor
registered in Class-I(A) category under Public Works Department, Government
of Assam.
In response to a Short Notice Inviting E-Tender issued by the Chief
Engineer (Technical), Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Guwahati, in
relation to construction of 2 Nos. of RCC Drain at Sorbhog Municipal Board, the
appellant submitted his bid along with the respondent No.3 herein as well as in
the writ petition.
The Financial Bids submitted by the appellant as well as the respondent
No.3 were declared responsive by the Department, and the respondent No.3
was declared as L-1 bidder whereas the appellant was declared as L-2 bidder.
3. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant approached the Writ Court
with the contention that as per Clause 29(IV) of the NIT, any Financial Bid which
is beyond 10% below the estimated cost of work is not required to be
considered for award of the contract and the same is liable to be rejected as
non-responsive.
4. It is also contended that as per Clause 26 (III) of the NIT, a Financial
Page No.# 3/6
Bid not substantially responsive is required to be rejected and may not be
subsequently made responsive by correction or withdrawal of non-conforming
deviation or reservation.
5. The appellant claimed that the estimated cost of the work is Rs.86.51
lakh and the appellant offered his bid at Rs.77,85,900/- which is exactly 10%
below the estimated cost of the work. However, the respondent No.3 offered his
bid at Rs.77,85,899.69 which is beyond 10% below the estimated cost of work
and is in violation of Clause 29(IV) of the Bid Document but despite the said fact
the respondent Department declared the Financial Bid of the respondent No.3
as responsive though it was supposed to be rejected as per Clause 29(IV) of the
Bid document.
6. The respondent Department had taken a stand before the learned Single
Judge that though the Financial Bid offered by the respondent No.3 was lower
by 31 paise, which is 10% below the estimated cost of the work, however, the
Tender Committee, relying on the Notification dated 21.09.2004 issued by the
Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works
Department, had applied the formula of rounding off of the bid price to the
nearest rupee value and after applying the said formula, declared the Financial
Bid of the respondent No.3 as responsive.
7. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the
respondent Department that the bid capacity of the respondent No.3 is
significantly better than the bid capacity of the appellant and therefore, the
respondent No.3 is declared as L-1 bidder.
8. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival
contentions and also taking into consideration the Notification dated 21.09.2004
Page No.# 4/6
issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Public Works Department; Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 01.01.1991, has
come to the conclusion that the decision of the Tender Committee as well as the
Departmental authorities is not liable to be interfered with.
9. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of Section 170 of the CGST
Act, while highlighting that in the said Act also, all tax, interest, penalty, refund
or other amounts owed are required to be rounded off to the nearest rupee.
10. The learned Single Judge has finally observed that the difference of 31
paise in a contract matter involving Rs.77,85,900/- is hyper technical, as 31
paise does not actually make any real difference.
11. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the Notification
dated 21.09.2004, relied upon by the respondent Department, introducing the
formula of rounding off is not under challenge, and as such, no case is made
out to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
12. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Md. S. Hoque, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Notification dated
21.09.2004 is applicable only in the Public Works Department and not under the
Department of Housing and Urban Affairs which had issued the NIT but the
learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from a
perusal of the NIT, it is clear that it has nowhere been mentioned that the
Notification dated 21.09.2004 is applicable in the NIT concerned. It is argued
that in absence of any such clarification in the NIT, the action of the respondent
authorities of relying on the Notification dated 21.09.2004 is arbitrary and
illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single
Page No.# 5/6
Judge has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and
therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge is liable to be interfered with and set aside and the reliefs prayed for the
appellant in the writ petition are liable to be granted.
14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after
going through the impugned judgment and order as well as the material
available on record, we are unable to take a different view than the view as has
been taken by the learned Single Judge.
15. True it is that the Financial Bid offered by the respondent No.3 was
beyond 10% below to the estimated cost of the works, but if the difference of
31 paise is rounded off to the nearest rupee, the Financial Bid offered by the
respondent No.3 can be treated as equal to the bid price of the
appellant/petitioner which is within the limit of 10% below the estimated cost of
the work.
16. Though the Notification dated 21.09.2004 was issued for the Public
Works Department but there is no reason as to why the same cannot be applied
by other Departments because any guideline issued by a Department of the
Government can very well be applied in the other Departments of the
Government in contract matters. The stand of a Government Department in
relation to the contract matters is supposed to be same in all the Government
Departments. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that
the Notification dated 21.09.2004 is as such not under challenge. So no case for
interference is made out.
Otherwise also, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the
difference of 31 paise in contract matter involving Rs.77,85,900/- is hyper-
Page No.# 6/6
technical as it does not actually make any real difference. The Reserve Bank of
India Circular dated 01.01.1991 also speaks about rounding off formula and
Section 170 of the CGST Act also approves such formula.
17. In view of the above, we do not find any case for interference. Hence,
this writ appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
