Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1801/2025 on 6 May, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010067702025
2025:GAU-AS:5584
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1801/2025
Sri Keshab Kalita,
S/o- Late Rajen Kalita, R/o- Vill.- Niz Dhing, P.O. Niz Dhing, P.S. Dhing, Dist.
Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782123.
....... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Municipal Administration Department, Dispur,
Guwahati-781006.
2:The Director Municipal Administration Department, Dispur Ghy-781006.
3:The Dhing Municipal Board represented by its Chairperson P.O. Dhing Dist.
Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782123.
4:The Chairperson (i/c) the Dhing Municipal Board P.O. Dhing, Dist. Nagaon,
Assam Pin- 782123.
5:The Executive Officer, Dhing Municipal Board, P.O.- Dhing, Dist. Nagaon,
Assam, PIN- 782123.
6:The Tender Evaluation Committee, represented by its Executive Officer,
Dhing Municipal Board, P.O. Dhing, Dist. Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782123.
7:Prabin Nath, S/o- Bakul Chandra, R/o- 44 Nam Dumdumia Satra Dhing (TC)
P.S. Dhing Chariali P.O. Dhing, Dist. Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782123.
...Respondents.
Page No.# 2/18
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
For the petitioner : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate
For the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. M. Chetia, Advocate
For the respondent Nos. 3-6 : Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the respondent No. 7 : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Kaushik, Advocate
Date of hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.05.2025
ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner assisted
by Mr. K. Kalita. Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel appears for the respondent
Nos.1 & 2; Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears for the respondent
Nos.3-6, i.e., the Dhing Municipal Board, while Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr.
Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appears for the respondent
No.7.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the settlement of the Dhing Bazar (Athgaon
Ghat) with the respondent No.7 for a period of 1(one) year, effective from
01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the settlement of the Dhing Bazar
Page No.# 3/18
with the respondent No.7 by the State respondents has been based on a
Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024, made in respect of
markets/bazars/hats/ghats etc. under the Zila Parishads, Anchalik Panchayats
and Gaon Panchayats, wherein it has been held that a bidder can quote a
maximum of 10% above the Government value/reserve price for the
markets/bazars/hats/ghats etc. and any bid above 10% of the Government
value would not be accepted.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner along with others had
submitted their bids for the Dhing Bazar, pursuant to the NIT dated 24.01.2025.
In the NIT, no condition has been stipulated, which states that a bidder cannot
bid higher than 10% of the Government value fixed for the Bazar. Further, the
Cabinet decision which restricts submission of a bid beyond 10% of the
Government value of a bazar, has been made only with regard to the bazars
being run by the Panchayat Department and not in respect of the Dhing Bazar,
which is run under the Municipal Administration Department.
5. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Panchayat
Department's decision to incorporate the Cabinet decision, restricting the bids of
tenderers to 10% of the Government value of the bazaars, besides not being
applicable to the Municipal Administration Department, the same was to be
incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tenders of the Panchayat Department only.
There is no incorporation of the Cabinet decision in the present NIT dated
24.01.2025. He also submits that the petitioner has not made any written
averment in the writ petition with regard to the pre-bid meeting that had been
held between the tenderers and the State respondents on 11.03.2025, in
Page No.# 4/18
relation to the NIT dated 24.01.2025, wherein there was a discussion whether
there should be an extension of the last date of submission of tenders in
relation to the NIT dated 24.01.2025., as the same was objected by many of the
bidders, which resulted in there being no extension of the last date for
submission of bids of the tenderers. The petitioner's counsel submits that there
was no discussion in the pre-bid meeting, for restricting the bids of tenderers to
10% of the Government value of the bazar.
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that though the State respondents have a
right not to select the highest bidder, reasons have to be provided for not
selecting the highest bidder. In the present case, the petitioner's bid was the
second highest (H2), while the bid of the respondent No.7 was seventh highest
(H7). As such, the State respondents should have given justifiable reasons for
not awarding the settlement of the bazar to those persons, whose bids were
higher, instead of settling the same with the 7th highest bidder. He submits that
though the petitioner's bid is Rs.1,23,53,000/-, as against the respondent No.7's
bid of Rs.80,93,911/-, the petitioner, if selected, would have been duty bound to
collect toll/taxes in terms of the prescribed rates fixed by the Dhing Municipal
Board, as provided in Clause 9 of the NIT. He submits that as the reserve
price/Government value of the Dhing Bazar was Rs.73,60,000/-, more revenue
would flow into the Government coffers if the petitioner or H1 had been
selected, which would be in public interest.
7. The petitioner's counsel also submits that if the restrictions on the bids of
tenderers were discussed in the pre-bid meeting, the tenderers, including the
petitioner, would not have submitted bids beyond the 10% limit provided for by
Page No.# 5/18
the Cabinet decision on 27.06.2025. However, as no discussion with regard to
bids beyond 10% of the Government value not being considered, having been
made at the pre-bid meeting, several tenderers had submitted bids beyond 10%
of the Government value of the bazar. The petitioner's counsel further submits
that no written meeting minutes of the pre-bid meeting held on 11.03.2025 has
been made by the State respondents, to show that the tenderers were to
restrict their bids to 10% of the Government value of the bazar. In support of
his submission that the selection and settlement of the Dhing Bazar with the
respondent No.7 should be set aside, the petitioner has relied upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in the case of:- (i) Dutta
Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 53; (ii) Educomp Solutions Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Assam
& Ors., reported in (2006) 3 GLR 117; (iii) Makrub Khan @ Junu Khan
(MD.) Vs. Manuj Kumar Sarmah & Ors., reported in 2011 (5) GLT 746
and (iv) Babul Das Vs. the State of Assam, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Gau 807.
8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.7, on the
other hand, submits that there has been a suppression of facts by the petitioner,
inasmuch as, he had not made any disclosure in his pleadings, with regard to
the holding of a pre-bid meeting on 11.03.2025. He submits that even if the
petition was to succeed, the petitioner being H2, it was incumbent on the part
of the petitioner to have impleaded the tenderer whose bid was H1. He submits
that the Municipal Board had taken a decision on 05.03.2025, to restrict
consideration of the bids of the tenderers to 10% of the Government value of
the bazar and the same had been discussed in the pre-bid meeting held on
Page No.# 6/18
11.03.2025. The petitioner being aware of the decision to restrict consideration
of the bids of the tenderers to 10% of the Government valuation of the bazar,
the petitioner cannot be now allowed to make a challenge to the selection of
the respondent No.7, after the petitioner's bid stood disqualified.
9. The learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.7 also submits that in terms
of Rule 7 of the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by
Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Rules for Procedure, 1958'), the respondents are not bound to accept
the highest bid or any bid. However, if the respondents do not accept the
highest bid or any bid, the reasons for not accepting the same have to be
recorded in writing. In the present case, though the petitioner's bid was higher
than the bid of the respondent No.7, the reasons for not accepting the higher
bid has been categorically spelt out, in the minutes of the Board Meeting held
on 18.03.2025, which is to the effect that the settlement of the Dhing Bazar
would only be in respect of those bids, which did not exceed 10% of the tender
value. The learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.7 further submits that in
terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Binda Express
Carrier & Anr. Vs. North East Frontier Railway & Ors., reported in (2014)
3 SCC 760, the Supreme Court has held that the bidders participating in the
tender process cannot insist that the because a given tender is the highest or
lowest, depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for
execution of works on behalf of the Government, their tenders should be
accepted. All that participating bidders are entitled to, is a fair, equal and non
discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. He submits
that as there is no public interest involved in the present case, given the fact
Page No.# 7/18
that the settlement of the bazar is essentially a commercial transaction, the
challenge made to the selection of the respondent No.7 by the State
respondents has to be rejected. He also submits that in the case of Tata
Motors Ltd. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (BEST) and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671, the
Supreme Court has held that Courts are normally loathe to interfere in
contractual matters, unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias
or irrationality is made out. The Supreme Court further held that the Courts
should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every
small mistake appear like a big blunder and that though the actions of the State
are amenable to the writ jurisdiction, this discretionary power must be exercised
with a great deal of restraint and caution.
10. The learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that when the
petitioner has been informed that bids above 10% of the Government
value/reserve rate would not be accepted by the respondent authorities in the
pre-bid meeting, there was no infirmity with the rejection of the bid of the
petitioner, which was beyond 10% of the Government value.
11. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3-6 submits
that the tenderer whose bid was H1 has not been made a party to the present
case. He submits that despite the Municipal Board having taken a decision to
consider only those bids which were within the 10% of the Government reserve
price, for settlement of the Dhing Bazar, the petitioner's bid was 68% higher
than the reserve price and 65% higher than the previous year. He submits that
the petitioner was the settlement holder of the bazar in the previous year and
Page No.# 8/18
as such, the quantum jump in the bid of the petitioner could not have been in
public interest. He submits that the restriction put on the bids that could be
submitted by the tenderers had been made by the Cabinet, in view of the fact
that the settlement holders used to charge high tolls from the persons who
made use of the bazars, which eventually led to higher price of commodities,
which was not in public interest.
12. The counsel for the respondent Nos.3-6, while reiterating the submissions
made by the counsel for the respondent No.7, has also stated that the reason
for not selecting the petitioner's bid and the bids of the other tenderers had
been clearly spelt out in the minutes of the Board Meeting held on 18.03.2025,
wherein it was stated that the resolution taken on 05.03.2025 by the Dhing
Municipal Board, wherein the Cabinet decision was decided to be followed, had
been reflected. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India & Anr.,
reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, while exercising the power of judicial review
in respect of contracts, the Court should concern itself primarily with the
question whether there was any infirmity in the decision making process and it
could not examine the details of the terms of the tender. Further, the Courts
should interfere only in public interest. He submits that no case of arbitrariness,
malafides or unreasonableness having been made out by the petitioner, besides
the lack of public interest, the writ petition should be dismissed.
13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
14. In the case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court
Page No.# 9/18
has held that whatever procedure the Government proposes to follow in
accepting the tender must be clearly stated in the tender notice, the
consideration of the tenders received and the procedure to be followed in the
matter of acceptance of a tender should be transparent, fair and open. The
Supreme Court in the above case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held
that the acceptance of the appellant's tender had been vitiated by more than
one illegality. Firstly, the tender notice did not specify the `viability range' nor
did it say that only the tenders coming within the viability range would be
considered. The Supreme Court further held that secondly, it was not able to
understand the very concept of `viability range', though the counsel for the
appellant had tried to explain the same.
15. In the present case also, there is nothing stated in the NIT to the effect
that the bids beyond 10% of the Government value of the Dhing Bazar would
not be accepted and as such, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the rejection of the bids of the
tenderers, which were beyond 10% of the Government value/reserve price,
including the petitioner's bid, would have to be held to be vitiated, inasmuch as,
the rejection of the same was not open and transparent.
16. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that there was a pre-bid
meeting, where it had been resolved that the bids of the tenderers would be
considered, only if the same was within 10% of the Government value.
However, there is no proof that the said issue had been discussed, inasmuch as,
no written records of the pre-bid meeting had been made by the respondents.
There is another aspect of the matter to be considered. When the tender
Page No.# 10/18
conditions require the successful bid to collect toll/taxes only in terms of the
prescribed rates, the respondents have not stated how the bids beyond 10% of
the Government value, would not be in public interest.
17. In the case of Educomp Solutions Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has
held that accountability is an essential element in securing the legitimacy and
public confidence in the exercise of State power. Accountability is vital to ensure
that the State and its agencies use their powers even in the matter of awarding
contracts faithfully to pursue public interest. In short, accountability is necessary
to ensure that State agencies do not act in their own interest. The Supreme
Court in the above case also did not accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it was not at all necessary for Governmental
agencies to notify the selection criteria in detail even at the threshold and that
the same could be done at any stage.
18. Para 49 of the judgment of the Division of the Gauhati High Court in
Educomp Solutions Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow as follows:-
"49. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the
learned senior counsel Shri R.K. Anand that it is not at all necessary for the
governmental agencies to notify the selection criteria in detail even at the
threshold and the same can be done at any stage. Does it mean the selection
criteria can be evolved after opening of the technical bids ? Would it not give
room and leverage to the decision makers to manipulate the result to suit the
convenience of a particular bidder? In our view even if such criteria is not
notified at the beginning the same should be made known to all the interested
before submission of bids by duly informing them about the proposed criteria to
be applied and the methodology in awarding the marks to evaluate the
technical and commercial bids. In the case on hand such a course ought to
have been adopted at least on 14.12.2005 when the amendments to the NIT
were communicated to all the concerned. In fact, the case set up by the
Page No.# 11/18
AMTRON is as if the methodology, criteria and the formula of 60 : 40 was
communicated to all the concerned on 14.12.2005 which plea is not acceptable
to us because record does not reveal the same. In the absence of such a
communication the contention that the decision makers applied hidden criteria
evolved as a tailor made to suit the 4th respondent acquires legitimacy.
We accordingly hold that the procedure adopted by the decision makers
is vitiated by the application of hidden criteria, lack of transparency and
accountability. Procedural impropriety is writ large on the face of a the record "
19. In the case of Makrub Khan @ Junu Khan (supra) , the Division Bench
of the Gauhati High Court has held that every NIT must disclose the procedure,
which would be followed in the matter of acceptance or rejection of tender, so
that the entire tender process become transparent, fair and open. It also held
that permitting to adopt hidden criteria poses a very grave danger and the same
is an anathema to the concept of transparency, which has to be observed in the
matter of distribution of State largesse. It also held that only because there was
a 75% increase of the bid of the writ petitioner therein, over the rate offered in
the last year, it could not be said that the bid was speculative or excessive, as
there was a toll list in place and if coercive measure was adopted by the lessee
to extract toll from the vendors other than what was prescribed, the Municipal
Board was certainly not powerless to set right a wrong that was committed.
20. In the case of Jespar I. Slong vs. State of Meghalaya, reported in
(2004) 11 SCC 485, the Supreme Court held that the fee to be collected from
transporters for weighment of their vehicles in the weighbridge being fixed, the
same would not vary with the amount of bid offered by the contractor. It held
that payment of the bid amount would not have any effect on the price of coal,
Page No.# 12/18
since the weighment charges were fixed by the Government and the contractor
had no right to increase the same, thereby cause loss to the public. As a matter
of fact, obtaining higher revenue by accepting the eligible highest bid would
only be in public interest, because the State stands to gain more revenue in that
way. It also observed that offering a bid, after knowing the commercial value of
the contract, is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the
tenderer and no third party's interest is involved in such a contract. If the State
decides to give its largesse to the public, it has an obligation to see that it
fetches the best possible value for the same, provided it does not otherwise in
any manner affect the rights of other persons. No bidder has any right in law to
demand the State to give away it's largesse for an amount which he considers
to be reasonable, when there are bidders willing to pay more for it.
21. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Babul Das (supra) held that when
the Municipal Board had failed to show that any range had been ascertained
before initiation of the competitive bidding process by the tender notice or
before submission of their bid documents, the same would be arbitrary and
unreasonable.
22. In the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. (supra) , the Supreme
Court has held that the bidders participating in a tender process cannot insist
that their tenders should be accepted, simply because a given tender is the
highest or lowest depending upon the type of contract to be awarded. All that
participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory
treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. The award of a contract
is essentially a commercial transaction, which must be determined on the basis
Page No.# 13/18
of considerations that are relevant to such commercial decision.
23. In the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has held
that the Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders
and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the Courts
must give "fair play in the joints" to the Government and public sector
undertakings in matters of contracts.
24. In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the Supreme
Court had referred to various other judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein it
was held that where a State had acted reasonably, fairly and in public interest in
awarding a contract, the Court should not interfere, as the principles of equity
and natural justice stay at a distance. It was only when a case of illegality or
arbitrariness was made out that the Courts could interfere in contractual
matters.
25. In the present case, the Government value/reserve price given to the
Dhing Bazar by the Dhing Municipal Board is 73,60,000/-. What is clear is that
there has been nothing stated in the NIT restricting the bids of the tenderers to
10% of Government value for the Dhing Bazar. The Government value/reserve
price is only to ensure that bids of the reserve price would not be lower than the
reserve price.
26. On considering the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 24.01.2024, a
tenderer can submit a bid of any value without restriction. However, as held by
the Supreme Court in various decisions, the authority who is to award the
Page No.# 14/18
contract, is not bound to accept the highest or lowest bid, depending upon the
contract work. However, the reasons for not accepting the highest or lowest bid
would have to be given by the authority.
27. In the present case, the reason given by Dhing Municipal Board for not
accepting the bid of the petitioner and the bids of the other tenderers, who had
quoted rates above 10% of the Government value for the Dhing Bazar, has been
spelt out in the minutes of the board meeting held on 05.03.2025, which states
as follows:-
"Discussion & Resolution:
The Board discussed the settlement of Dhing Bazar (Athgaon Hat) for the
year 2025-26 based on the Assam Cabinet Decision held on 27th June, 2024
which states the following points:
1. "Any bidder can quoted a maximum 10% above the government value for
the market/Bazar/Ghatt etc."
2. "Any bid above 10% will not be accepted."
Also it is been seen that due to the high bidding prices for the settlement
of Markets/ Bazar/Haats/Ghats etc, this results in higher rate of collection from
the traders & public under our ULB raising various concerns.
Accordingly, based on the above reasons we unanimously decide to settle
the Dhing Bazar (Athgaon Hat; for the year 2025-26 to any one of the
responsive bidder ensuring that the settlement value does not exceed 10% of
the tender value in our Dhing Municipal Board, as per the Assam Cabinet
Decision held on 27th June, 2025 similar to that in case of PNRD department. "
28. The reason for not considering the bids of the tenderers exceeding 10% of
the tender value, in terms of the Board Meeting dated 05.03.2025, clearly
shows that it had been made only due to the decision of the Assam Cabinet
made on 27.06.2025, without considering whether the reasons for the Assam
Page No.# 15/18
Cabinet decision was applicable to the case in hand. Further, there is no record
of the pre-bid meeting held on 11.03.2025, which was held one day prior to the
last date for submission of bids, discussing or making a resolution that bids
beyond 10% of the Government value/reserve price would not be considered.
29. The decision of the Cabinet, to restrict tenderers from giving bids beyond
10% of the reserve price has been made, due to the higher rate of tax/toll
collection made by the successful lessees of the markets/bazar etc., to make up
for the high bid submitted by them, for settlement of the markets/bazars.
However, in the present case, Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the NIT
dated 24.01.2025 states as follows:-
"9. Toll Collection Rates:
The lessee must collect tolls at the rate fixed by the Dhing Municipal
Board, which are displayed on the notice board."
In view of Clause 9, wherein the lessee is allowed to collect tolls only at
the rates fixed by the Dhing Municipal Board, which is displayed in the notice
board, there can be no discernible reason not to settle the marked with the
highest bidder, inasmuch as, the basis for making the Cabinet decision, in
respect of the market/hats etc., run by the Panchayat Department, has been
taken care of in the NIT dated 24.01.2025, for settlement of the Dhing Bazar,
which is under the Municipal Administrative Department. Further, as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jespar I. Slong (supra), obtaining higher
revenue by accepting the eligible highest bid would be in the public interest. If
the State gives its largesse to the public, it has an obligation to see that it
Page No.# 16/18
fetches the best possible value for the same, provided it does not in any manner
affect the rights of other persons. If the petitioner or any other tenderer collects
tolls/taxes beyond the prescribed rates, the respondents have the power to
correct the wrong, including the power to cancel the settlement in terms of
Clause 12 of the NIT.
30. In the present case, the right to reject tenders has been provided in Clause
8 of the terms and condition of the NIT dated 24.01.2025. However, the
petitioner's bid has not been rejected pursuant to Clause 8 of the terms and
conditions of the NIT, but only in terms of the Cabinet decision taken on
27.06.2024.
31. As can be seen from the above, it is not the case of the respondents that
the petitioner or the bids of other tenderers, which were higher than the 10% of
the tender/reserve price, if accepted, would have resulted in the collection of a
higher toll/taxes beyond the prescribed rates, from the persons utilizing the
bazar, which in turn would have resulted in the prices of commodities becoming
higher. As such, there was no justification for not considering the bids of those
tenderers, which were beyond 10% of the Government value/tender price fixed
by the Government for the market.
32. As stated earlier, there is no pre-condition stipulated in the NIT that only
those bids, which were up to 10% of the tender price, would be considered.
Though, it has been stated that the State respondents had a pre-bid meeting
with the tenderers, with regard to the implementation of the State Cabinet
decision at the time of considering the bids of the tenderers, no written pre-bid
Page No.# 17/18
meeting minutes had been made by the State respondents, to prove that there
was a discussion and resolution that only bids up to 10% of the tender value of
the bazar would be considered. The fact that the State Cabinet decision was not
discussed in the pre-bid meeting appears to be plausible due to the fact that the
petitioner and the other tenderers had submitted bids beyond 10% of the
Government value/tender value. In any event, in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) & Jespar
I. Slong (supra), the various decisions of the Division Bench and the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the non-consideration
of the petitioner's bid along with the bids of other tenderers, who had quoted
beyond 10% of the Government value/tender/reserve price, is arbitrary. There
has been no openness and transparency in the act of the State respondents in
rejecting the tender of the petitioner and similarly situated tenderers, pursuant
to the NIT dated 24.01.2025.
33. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the rejection of
the bids of the petitioner and other similarly situated tenderers was arbitrary
and accordingly not sustainable. The impugned minutes of the Dhing Municipal
Board meeting dated 18.03.2025 and the selection order dated 19.03.2025
issued by the Chairperson (in-charge), Dhing Municipal Board are hereby set
aside, in so far as it relates to the respondent No. 7. The settlement order dated
21.03.2025, settling Dhing Bazar with the respondent No. 7 is also set aside.
The Dhing Municipal Board is directed to consider the bids of the petitioner and
other similarly situated tenderers, whose bids have been rejected for settlement
of the Dhing Bazar, without taking recourse to the Dhing Municipal Board
meeting minutes dated 05.03.2025. Consequently, the meeting minutes dated
Page No.# 18/18
05.03.2025 is also set aside. The Dhing Municipal Board shall re-consider the
bids of the tenderers and settle the bazar with the highest tenderer, provided
the tenderer is not ineligible on account of Clause 8 of the terms and conditions
of the NIT. The selection exercise shall be concluded within a period of 3(three)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
34. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
