In Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Work reported in AIR
Case Details
WA 387/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.M. SAPRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.M.Sapre, C.J.)
Legal Reasoning
This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No .2280 of 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules aga inst the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in the aforementio ned writ petitioner.
Decision
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petit ion filed by the appellant. The question therefore which arises for consideratio n in the appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The short question which arose for consideration before the learned Sing le Judge was whether the tender submitted by the appellant pursuant to the NIT i ssued by the Respondent No.2 was rightly rejected by the authority concerned or not ? This issue was decided against the writ petitioner which gave rise to fi ling of the writ appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. We however consider it apposite to reproduce the finding of the learned Single Judge which dealt with the issue: I have heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. (cid:28) Terangpi learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. J. Chutia, le arned Standing Counsel, KAAC and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel representing the re spondent No. 4. I have considered the entire materials on record including recor ds produced by the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC. The NIT dated 21.01.2013 was issued inviting bids from the intending tenderer. A s per the terms and conditions of the NIT (Clause i) (1), the person belonging t o ST(H) shall enclose the documents indicated therein along with the tender appl ication. The documents amongst other are the LRCC (up-to-date). What the petitio ner produced is the LRCC standing in the name of his wife. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the LRCC standing in the name of the wife of the petitioner was sufficient, but on being pointed out as to whether th e same relates to the land belonging to the petitioner or whether it was made kn own in the tender document that the petitioner would rely upon the LRCC of his w ife coupled with the fact that the said requirement was in respect of ST(H), no clarification could be furnished. As stated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner did not submit up-to-date LRC C. What he has submitted is the LRCC standing in the name of one Smti Rupali Kin lingpi, whom the petitioner claims to be his wife. Interestingly, in the tender document, he also did not name his parents but identified himself as the wife of said Smti Rupali Kilingpi. This being the position the authority in the KAAC re jected the tender of the petitioner and settled the same with the respondent No. 4. In Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Work reported in AIR 1991 SC 1579, the Apex Court classifying the requirement of tender notice into non-essen tial or ancillary, held that if it is essential, the same is required to be enfo rced rigidly but in the later case the same may be deviated from. In Monarch In frastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation reporte d in (2000) 5 SCC 287, the Apex Court set aside the award of contract to a tende rer who at the time of submission of tender did not satisfy one of the condition s of eligibility, which was subsequently deleted after the expiry of the time li mit for submission of tenders but before opening thereof. In Air India Ltd Vs. C ochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, emphasising on th e need to comply with the norms, standards and procedure in awarding contract by State or its instrumentality, it was held by the Apex Court that the State can choose its own method. It was further held that the Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority and the Court should exercise its disc retionary power with great caution and only in furtherance of overwhelming publi c interest. In the said case, the Apex Court having noticed that the limited glo bal competitive bidding having been accepted on the last date fixed, it was not open to the authority to initiate negotiation with another party behind the back of the other party and thereby permitting the said party to revise its offer. In Benjamin Lalrinawma Vs. State of Mizoram reported in 2005 (3) GLT 580, this C ourt upholding the rejection of the particular tender on the ground of non-submi ssion of authorization, distributorship/dealership certificate as per conditions of NIT, held that submission of such certificate was essential condition for a valid tender and that the authority rightly declared the said tender as invalid. In Mahananda Gogoi Vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (3) GLT 144 also this Co urt dealing with upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s tender on the groun d of non-submission of (cid:28)No Debt Certificate (cid:29), although consequence of non-compli ance was not mentioned in the NIT, held that there must be strict adherence to t he conditions of the NIT. In Bikash Bora Vs. State of Assam reported in 2003 (2) GLT 485, the Division Bench of this Court held that non-fulfillment of conditio ns required for submission of valid tender was fatal to the tenders submitted by the appellant. In the said case, the appellant, although, was the highest bidde r but did not submit the Loan Clearance Certificate and Sales tax Clearance Cert ificate. It was argued that the said requirements were not essential but only an cillary. The Division Bench held that submission of such certificates was essent ial condition for valid tender and accordingly upheld the cancellation of the se ttlement made in favour of the appellant. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and having regard t o the fact that the petitioner did not submit the LRCC, there was nothing wrong in rejecting its tender on merit applying the sound discretion in the matter. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition a nd accordingly, it is dismissed. (cid:29) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the r ecords of the case, particularly the findings quoted (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned finding as in our view the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is just and legal. Admittedly, when the appellant failed to fulfill the material conditions of the tender notice by not being able to submit the necessary document which h e was required to file then his tender had to be rejected by the authority and w as rightly upheld by the Single Judge by the impugned order. Even learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any fac tual or/and legal error in any of the findings of the learned Single Judge which may persuade us to interfere. Since we concur with the view of the learned Single Judge, we find no an y merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.