Gauhati High Court
Dhrubajyoti Saikia vs Simanta Gogoi And 4 Ors on 31 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010180162024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/302/2024
DHRUBAJYOTI SAIKIA
S/O DHANESHWAR SAIKIA,
RESIDENT OF KHELMATI, WARD NO. 14, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST
LAKHIMPUR, 787001
VERSUS
SIMANTA GOGOI AND 4 ORS
S/O BHADRESWAR GOGOI, RESIDENT OF MILON NAGAR, PS GHILAMARA
DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR-BELTOLA ROAD
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN
E- BIDDING COMMITTEE
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM, PIN-787001
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM, PIN-78700
For petitioner/applicant(s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M. Biswas, Advocate
Page No.# 2/5
For respondent(s) : Mr. Bedanta Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Advocate
Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
31.07.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
The challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment dated 28.08.2024
passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1681/2024, whereby the
decision of the respondent authority to disqualify the private respondent/writ
petitioner has been interfered with and the order has been set aside. A direction
has also been issued to the State respondents to open the private
respondent/writ petitioner's financial bid and consider the same along with other
valid bids in pursuance to the NIT.
The appellant had come out successful in the Bid.
A tender was floated by the District Commissioner, Excise Branch,
Lakhimpur, through an NIT dated 20.12.2023 for grant of IMFL Retail Off
Licence in various locations in Lakhimpur District. This NIT was
withdrawn/cancelled because of lack of sufficient number of participants. The
second NIT was issued on 23.02.2024, in which the technical bid of the private
respondent/writ petitioner was rejected on two grounds, namely, (i) the site
plan submitted by the private respondent/writ petitioner was not countersigned
by an Assistant Executive Engineer, as was required under the NIT and (ii) there
was violation of Clause 22.3 of the bid document.
This was challenged by the private respondent/writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge on several grounds, but primarily on the ground that in the
Page No.# 3/5
first NIT, a Check List had been given which permitted the site plan to be
countersigned by an Engineer, without any specification of Junior Engineer or
Executive Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer. In the later NIT, similar
Check List was given and for any clarification, the earlier NIT was made
referable. However, with respect to the counter signature on the site plan, it was
specifically provided that it shall be countersigned by the Assistant Executive
Engineer.
The technical bid of the private respondent/writ petitioner was
countersigned by an Assistant Engineer.
The learned Single Judge found that this was not a mistake which was
deliberate or one which would have gone to the very issue of the credibility of
the bid of the private respondent/writ petitioner and held that in the list of
documents given in the bid papers, there was no indication that the requirement
of getting the site plan countersigned by Assistant Executive Engineer
superseded the earlier requirement of it being countersigned by any Engineer.
The learned Single Judge therefore went for a harmonious construction of the
bid conditions, namely, of the first bid which was recalled, and the second NIT,
which was being considered, and found the objection of the respondent
authority to be too technical and unjustifiable. As such, a direction was issued to
consider the bid of the private respondent/writ petitioner as well.
This has aggrieved the appellant and other bidders who were successful
on all counts and they now fear that they may be ousted from the competition
with another bidder in the fray.
The submission on behalf of the appellant is that times without number,
the Supreme Court has clarified in decisions relating to award of contracts that
Page No.# 4/5
Courts ought not to exercise the power judicial review, or interfere on minor
procedural aberration or error in assessment, or on the ground that prejudice to
a tenderer is made out. A tenderer or a contractor can always seek damages in
a Civil Court. Any attempt by unsuccessful tenderers with minor grievances,
even wounded pride or, for that matter, business rivalry ought not to be
permitted to make a mountain out of a molehill of some technical/procedural
violation or some prejudice.
The Courts, before interfering with the decision making process by the
State authority, must consider whether the process adopted, or the decision
made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or whether
the process adopted or the decision made is so arbitrary, irrational that the
Court can say that the decision is absolutely unacceptable, or where public
interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Refer to Jagdish
Mandal vs. State of Orissa & Ors. , (2007) 14 SCC 517; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr., (2016) 16 SCC 818).
In the second NIT, the documents to be submitted along with the
technical bid were enumerated. The Annexure "C", "D" and "E" of the earlier NIT
was though made referable; but with respect to the countersignature of the site
plan, a specific entry was made in the list of documents that it shall be
countersigned by the Assistant Executive Engineer.
This could be for the purpose of lending more credibility to the site plan,
or else the requirement would not have been changed in the second NIT.
The law with respect to laying stress and accepting a specific provision
with regard to any particular requirement is very clear. A specific requirement
Page No.# 5/5
must have precedence over the general requirement. "Specialibus generalia non
derogant".
When there is a conflict between a general law and a specific law, the
specific law prevails.
On a perusal of the judgment impugned, we find that an effort was made
to effect a harmonious construction of the requirements under the two NITs,
which in our considered view was not required.
In these days of competition, any fault on the part of a bidder could be
fatal. The Courts should keep its hands off such decisions, especially when
those decisions do not affect any public interest, or is not reflective of any mala
fides.
For the afore-noted reasons, we are not in agreement with the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, which we deem it appropriate to set aside.
We order accordingly.
The appeal stands allowed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
