Dismissed¶48

Abdul Awal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2025WA/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court writ appeal; WA/111/2025; Abdul Awal v. State of Assam; ferry service leasing tender; Inland Water Transport Division Assam; Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati ferry service 2024-26; non-responsive technical bid; experience certificate; financial soundness certificate nationalized bank; self-attested documents; relaxation of tender conditions Clause 23; L1 bidder Rs.6,57,000; Raunaq International Ltd. -vs- I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492; interference with tender process; writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed. ¶48

Abdul Awal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the settlement of the ferry service in question in favour of respondent No.7 was illegal because he had failed to submit self-attested documents along with his bid. +1 more

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Counsel for the appellant admitted before this Court that the appellant had failed to submit the Financial Soundness Certificate issued by a Nationalized Bank along with his bid.

¶48

Key takeaways

This Court was not persuaded to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge and found no case for interference with the tender process and the consequent settlement.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Division Bench (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ and N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J), by judgment dated 05.04.2025, dismissed Writ Appeal WA/111/2025 (Abdul Awal v. State of Assam and others) and declined to interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 in WP(C) No.4627/2024, which had upheld the settlement of the Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Karikhowa ferry service (period 2024-26) in favour of respondent No.7, Hazrat Ali, under the Inland Water Transport Department's Tender Notice dated 08.02.2024 (referred to as NIT dated 01.02.2024 in the impugned judgment). The appellant's technical bid had been found non-responsive for failure to submit the Experience Certificate/Financial Soundness Certificate from a nationalized bank, and his counsel admitted the omission before the Division Bench. Endorsing the Single Judge, the Court accepted that mandatory tender conditions cannot be relaxed at a tenderer's instance where such relaxation would defeat the purpose of the tender, rejected the challenge founded on respondent No.7's non-self-attested documents (originals having been verified before settlement), and noted the Single Judge's reliance on Raunaq International Ltd. -vs- I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, holding that no case for interference was made out. Writ appeal dismissed.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010060762025

2025:GAU-AS:4189-DB

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

¶5

Case No. : WA/111/2025

¶6

ABDUL AWAL

¶7

S/O MIYAR UDDIN , VILL. LATAKHAT,

¶8

P.O. BALABA, P.S. DHULA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784146

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY., TRANSPORT DEPTT. (INLAND WATER DIVISION), DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶11

2:THE JOINT SECY. ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TRANSPORT DEPTT. (INLAND WATER DIVISION) DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT GOVT. OF ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781005

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF IWT ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781005

¶14

5:HAZRAT ALI

¶15

S/O AHMED ALI VILL. OADAL BHETI

¶16

P.O. AND P.S. BHURAGAON DIST. MORIGOAN ASSAM PIN 78212

¶17

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.M. Ahmed, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M.D. Borah, Standing Counsel, Transport Department.

¶18

– B E F O R E –

¶19

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

05.04.2025

¶21

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

¶22

This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the

¶23

Page No.# 2/6

¶24

judgment & order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4627/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that under the directions of the Director, Inland Water Transport Division, Guwahati, Jorhat and Silchar, the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Ulubari, Guwahati floated a Tender Notice on 08.02.2024 inviting tender for leasing out 23 numbers of ferry services, details of which had been given in Schedule-A of the Tender Notice, in two-cover bid system, from the persons having experience of ferry business. The appellant as well as the respondent No.7 submitted their technical bid for ferry service No.3, i.e. Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Karikhowa ferry service.

¶26

The Tender Committee, in its meeting held on 28.06.2024, assessed the bids submitted by multiple bidders for 23 numbers of ferry services. However, in respect of the ferry service in relation to which the appellant and the respondent No.7 had applied, the Tender Committee noted that the technical bid submitted by the appellant and two others for the ferry service in question was not responsive, because the appellant had failed to submit Experience Certificate/Financial Soundness Certificate along with his technical bid. The Tender Committee found the bid submitted by the respondent No.7 as responsive for the ferry service in question and pursuant to the recommendation of the Tender Committee, the ferry service in question was settled in favour of the respondent No.7 by the respondent Department vide order dated 30.08.2024.

¶27

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed the above-referred writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the same.

¶28

Page No.# 3/6

¶29

Relevant portion of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:-

¶30

“ 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶31

10. Pursuant to the NIT dated 01.02.2024, six tenderers including the petitioner have submitted their bids in respect of Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service for the period 2024-26. The meeting of Tender Committee was held on 28.06.2024, regarding the settlement of 18 nos. of ferry services under IWT division, Guwahati and Silchar and after scrutiny of the bidders, it is found that the petitioner has failed to submit experience certificate/financial soundness certificate, therefore, out of six bidders, three bidders including the petitioner were found non-responsive. The bid of the respondent No.7, namely Hazrat Ali and two others, were found to have submitted all documents as per the NIT. The Financial bids of the respondent No.7 and two others were open and on scrutiny of the financial bid, the respondent No.7 has been found to be quoted the highest bid being Rs.6,57,000/- and was declared L1. Accordingly, the ferry service in respect of BhuragaonBadlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service was settled in favour of the respondent No.7.

¶32

11. The NIT dated 01.02.2024 was issued along with the terms and conditions for leasing out of the ferry services for the financial year 202426. Clause 11 of the terms and conditions provides that certified copies of updated income tax return must be submitted along with the tender. Further it is provided that the tenderer whose bid is less than Rs.6,00,000/-, submission of income tax return along with the tender will not be mandatory. It further provides that the copies of experience certificate issued by DC/ADC/SDO etc., must be submitted along with the tender. In case of new tenderer, a certificate of financial soundness of the tenderer from D.C./A.D.C./ SDO Sadar/SDO (Civil) of District/Sub-Division or any nationalized Bank should be enclosed. It is seen that the terms and condition of NIT requires submission of certified copy of updated income tax return and copies of experience certificate and the financial soundness of the tenderer from D.C./A.D.C./SDO or any nationalized bank must be enclosed.

¶33

12. Clause-3 of the terms and condition provides that irrespective of availability of vessels/boats, the offered bid value per annum basis should

¶34

Page No.# 4/6

¶35

be quoted inclusive of staff salary for each ferry service. Tender must be accompanied with self-attested copy of documents, failing which, the tender will be treated as an invalid tender. As reflected in the affidavit on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is seen that most of the documents of the respondent No.7 were not self-attested except for few documents. However, as per the Government order, before the settlement is granted, the original document is required to be verified and the records indicates that the original documents of the respondent No.7 was verified and thereafter, only the settlement was granted to the respondent No.7 having been found to be the highest bidder.

¶36

13. Regard being had to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Director, IWT has the right to relax any terms and condition of the NIT in consideration of practical and field situation, in the process of finalization of bids as per Clause 23 of the terms and condition of the NIT and therefore, non-submission of required documents ought to have been relaxed by invoking power of relaxation, I am not persuaded with the same as the power to relax has been provided for relaxation of any terms and condition of the NIT taking into consideration of the practical and on field situation while in the process of finalization of bids and same would not mean that non-submission of required documents would be relaxed. If such contention is allowed, it would defeat the whole purpose of tender. The tenderer cannot as a matter of right, claim for such relaxation.

¶37

14. The petitioner, admittedly, has failed to submit experience and financial soundness certificate as well as other required documents, which is clearly reflected on his own showing that he submitted the certificate of financial soundness from non-nationalized bank being Northeast Small Finance Bank under wrong impression. Thus, the petitioner would not have any reason and right to claim relaxation as he has failed to submit the required document as per NIT.

¶38

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. -vs- I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, has held that any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfill the requisite criteria, is misplaced and the tender cannot be interfered with at the instance of a party which bid does not fulfill the requisite criteria.

¶39

16. In the present case, the petitioner who has challenge the settlement of ferry service with the respondent No. 7 did not fulfill the requisite criteria, as he failed to submit the financial soundness certificate. That apart, the present case is not a case where any malafide has been

¶40

Page No.# 5/6

¶41

alleged nor there is any allegation of any collateral motive for entering into a settlement with the respondent No.7. The only ground of challenge is that the respondent No.7 has not submitted self-attested documents along with bid, to which, this Court has found that the said documents were examined before the final settlement was granted to the respondent No.7 as per requirement. Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.7 did not fulfill the criteria of the NIT and the power of relaxation as provided under Clause 23 of the terms and condition which ought to have been invoked as the petitioner failed to submit the mandatory documents as per Clause -11 of the terms and condition, which is clearly admitted by him and as such this Court finds no illegality in the tender process and the consequent settlement of the tender with the respondent No.7.

¶42

17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference with the tender process vide NIT dated 01.02.2024 and settlement of lease granted to the respondent No.7 in respect of Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service for the period 2024-26.

¶43

18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, no order as to costs.”

¶44

The appellant raised mainly two grounds before the learned Single Judge, firstly, that the respondent Department had illegally settled the ferry service in question in favour of the respondent No.7 though he had failed to submit self attested documents as per the condition of the tender and, secondly, that the respondent Department ought to have relaxed the condition of furnishing Financial Soundness Certificate issued by a Nationalized Bank along with the bid and should have taken into consideration the Financial Soundness Certificate issued by a Nationalized Bank in favour of him, which was submitted on a later date.

¶45

The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that though the respondent No.7 had not submitted the self attested documents along with his

¶46

Page No.# 6/6

¶47

bid but the tender was finalized in his favour after verifying the non-self attested documents as per the Government order and, therefore, the action of the respondent Department of settling the ferry service in question in faovur of the respondent No.7 cannot be said to be illegal. In respect of submission of a Financial Soundness Certificate issued by a Nationalized Bank by the appellant on a later date, the learned Single Judge has observed that the condition of the tender cannot be relaxed as it would defeat the whole purpose of the tender. The learned Single Judge has further held that a tenderer cannot, as a matter of right, claim for such relaxation.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view in the matter than the view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge and has admitted that the appellant had failed to submit Financial Soundness Certificate issued by a Nationalized Bank along with his bid. In such circumstances, we do not find any case for interference. Hence, this writ appeal stands dismissed.

¶49

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Awal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Awal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niran Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mrs Juri Barman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ramendra Lal Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Purbanchal Cement Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax

Janmejoy Agarwala and 9 Ors. Vs N.F. Railway and 2 Ors.

Arun Narzary Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.