A bidder disqualified at technical evaluation for an IMFL retail off licence challenged the licence granted to respondent no.7. Relying on Raunaq International and allied precedents, the court held he had no enforceable right violated and lacked locus standi, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010047472024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1313/2024
SATYAJIT MORANG
S/O JOGESH MORANG, P/R/O BOCHAGAON, P.O.-PANIGAON, DISTLAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWHAATI781006
GUWAHATI-781006
3:COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE BELTOLA TINIALI GUWAHATI-781036
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM
6:TENDER/BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE HEADED BY CHAIRMAN CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/7
LAKHIMPUR
7:HRISHIKESH DEKA S/O GOPESH DEKA 22 BOGOLIGAN B.O. CINATOLI DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM-78703
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
07.03.2024
Page No.# 3/7
respondent no.7 had also not fulfilled all the conditions required in the NIT dated 20.12.2023, which are enumerated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. He accordingly submits that the licence granted to the respondent no.7 should be set aside and fresh tender should be issued.
“…… Therefore, any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfill the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced.
………”
Page No.# 4/7
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power is judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interference, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone.
Page No.# 5/7
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’;
ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving black-listing or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a
Page No.# 6/7
complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
Page No.# 7/7
aggrieved person. Accordingly, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, as no right of his has been violated. Consequently, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Limited (supra), the petitioner’s challenge to the grant of licence to the respondent no.7 being mis-placed, the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bidder disqualified at the technical evaluation stage can challenge grant of an IMFL licence to another bidder under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner, lacking a violated enforceable right, has locus standi to file the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raunaq International Limited vs. I.V.R. Construction LimitedRelied on¶8
(1999) 1 SCC 492 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa & OthersRelied on¶6
(2007) 14 SCC 517 · Who else cites this
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersApplied¶7
(2013) 4 SCC 465 · Who else cites this
SATYAJIT MORANG
THE STATE OF ASSAM
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE BELTOLA TINIALI GUWAHATI
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR
HRISHIKESH DEKA
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
