Dismissed

Kamrup Valley Suppliers v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2019WP(C)/583/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid in a two-bid tender supply process, claiming a mandatory eligibility criterion was inserted after initially being optional. The Court found the change was justified by objections raised during a pre-bid meeting and Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. Dismissing the petition, it held the modification did not arbitrarily exclude bona fide bidde

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the minutes of the meeting were not quashed; no direction to independently evaluate the financial bid was issued.

Kamrup Valley Suppliers Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010018072019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 583/2019

¶5

1:KAMRUP VALLEY SUPPLIERS

¶6

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHABIR MARKET, H.B. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE UZZANBAZAR GUWAHATI-01.

¶11

3:THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

¶12

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE UZZANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-01.

¶13

4:KRISHNA ENTERPRISE SANTINAGAR

¶14

P.O. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD) ASSAM, PIN- 783370

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 08-02-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶22

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of the minutes of the meeting of the technical evaluation committee dated 04.01.2019 whereby technical bid of the petitioner was rejected and seeks a direction to the respondents to evaluate the financial bid of the petitioner taking its technical bid as responsive.

¶23

Social Welfare Department had issued e-tender notice on 02.11.2018 for supply of ICDS pre-school kits under ICDS Project to anganwadi and mini anganwadi centres in the State of Assam for the financial year 2018-19 through two bid system i.e., technical bid and price bid. Responding to such e-tender notice, petitioner submitted its bid. However, it is stated that the technical evaluation committee in its meeting held on 04.01.2019 rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had not submitted annual turnover of Rs.3,00,00,000.00 for any of the three financial years i.e. 2015-16 to 2017-18 as per tender condition and had not submitted proof of previous performance of supply of similar type of materials to any Government department.

¶24

Grievance of the petitioner is that in the e-tender notice dated 02.11.2018 clause-3.8 of the eligibility criteria required proof of previous performance of supply of similar type of materials/anganwadi materials to any Government department – to the furnished, if any but by the corrigendum dated 12.11.2018 the words “if any” was omitted thereby making furnishing of proof of such previous performance mandatory.

¶25

Contention of the petitioner is that because of such deviation in the eligibility criteria it became ineligible. Earlier, previous performance was optional but by removing the words “if any”, previous performance was subsequently made obligatory.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

When the writ petition was moved on 30.01.2019 the following order was passed:-

¶28

“ Without expressing any opinion on the challenge made by the petitioner at this stage, Court is of the view that Mr Dhar should obtain instructions as to why there has been change in the eligibility criteria by insisting on furnishing of proof of previous performance of supply of similar types of materials/Anganwadi materials to any Government department.”

¶29

Today, when the matter is called upon, Mr. Dhar submits on the basis of written instructions that a pre-bid meeting was held by the tendering authority with the intending bidders on 09.11.2018 in which a total of 29 intending bidders had participated. They raised objection as to the use of the words “if any” in clause-3.8 making previous experience optional. He further submits that as per office memorandum dated 17.12.2002 of the Central Vigilance Commission, experience and past performance of executing similar contract for last 2 years should be insisted upon. Therefore, keeping in view the objection raised by the proposed bidders and the office memorandum of the Central Vigilance Commission, eligibility criteria as contained in clause 3.8 was modified as above.

¶30

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that such modification of eligibility clause 3.8 does not fundamentally alter the nature and character of the tender or would exclude bona fide bidders. Insistence on such criteria can neither be said to be arbitrary nor irrational.

¶31

In such circumstances, Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Kamrup Valley Suppliers v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamrup Valley Suppliers v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nilakanta Daflari and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Bidyadhar Doley (Madhab) Vs Nilakanta Daflari and 13 Ors.

Praveen Baishya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abedur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Renu Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.