Abdul Awal Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abdul Awal Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the settlement of the Bhuragaon-Badlichar ferry service to respondent No. 7 (described by the petitioner as the 4th highest bidder) was illegal because most of his documents were not self-attested as required by Clause 3 of the NIT terms and conditions, entailing rejection of his tender. +1 more

Court's answer

Although most documents of respondent No. 7 were not self-attested, per the Government order the original documents were required to be verified before settlement, and the records indicate the originals were verified and thereafter settlement was granted to him as the highest (L1) bidder.

Ratio / Principle

The power to relax terms of the NIT under Clause 23 is for consideration of practical and on-field situation while finalising bids; it does not mean that non-submission of required documents would be relaxed, else it would defeat the whole purpose of tender, and a tenderer cannot claim such relaxation as a matter of right.

Key takeaways

The petitioner admittedly failed to submit the experience and financial soundness certificate and other required documents (Clause 11 requirements), having himself submitted a certificate from a non-nationalized bank under wrong impression; he therefore has no reason or right to claim relaxation.ratio¶¶42
Applying Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, judicial relief is misplaced at the instance of a bidder who does not fulfil the requisite criteria; in the present case the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria as he failed to submit the financial soundness certificate.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kardak Ete, J.) dismissed W.P.(C) No. 4627/2024, Abdul Awal v. The State of Assam & Ors. (decided 06.03.2025). The petitioner challenged the rejection of his bid and the settlement order dated 30.08.2024 granting the Bhuragaon-Badlichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chialmari, Karaikhowa Ferry Service (period 2024-26) to respondent No. 7 (Hazrat Ali) under the NIT dated 01.02.2024 issued by the Director, IWT, Assam. His grounds: (i) respondent No. 7's documents (Jamabandi, Land Valuation Certificate, NEC, IT return, Financial Soundness Certificate) were not self-attested as mandated by Clause 3, making his tender invalid; and (ii) the petitioner's own submission of a financial soundness certificate from a non-nationalized bank (Northeast Small Finance Bank) under wrong impression should have been relaxed under Clause 23, he claiming to be the highest bidder at Rs. 19,10,000/-. Held: the Clause 23 power to relax operates for practical and on-field situations during finalization of bids and cannot excuse non-submission of mandatory documents; a tenderer cannot claim relaxation as of right, otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of tender. The petitioner admittedly failed to submit the experience and financial soundness certificates required by Clause 11 (from DC/ADC/SDO or a nationalized bank). Following Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, judicial relief is misplaced at the instance of a bidder whose bid does not fulfil the requisite criteria. Although most of respondent No. 7's documents lacked self-attestation, the Government order required verification of originals before settlement, and the originals were verified before settlement was granted to him as L1 (Rs. 6,57,000/-); no mala fide or collateral motive was alleged. No illegality was found in the tender process or the settlement; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.