Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010037462024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1069/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O- LATE RAJMOHAN ROYMEDHI,

R/O- BHARALUMUKH, KUMARPARA, KRB ROAD, GHY-09,

P.S- BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,

PIN-781009

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL

HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

DISPUR, ASSAM, GHY-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY

DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI

ASSAM Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010037462024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1069/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O- LATE RAJMOHAN ROYMEDHI,

R/O- BHARALUMUKH, KUMARPARA, KRB ROAD, GHY-09,

P.S- BHARALUMUKH, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,

PIN-781009

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL

HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

DISPUR, ASSAM, GHY-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY

DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI

ASSAM

Page No.# 2/18

PIN-781335

5:BABITA BORAH

SIVAMANDIR PATH

KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI-22

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, DIKSHITA DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. D J BORAH (R-5),MR. S CHETRY (R-5),MR. B

CHETRI (R-5),MS. M M KATOKI ( for R/p No. 1 to 4 )

WP(C)/1178/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O LT. RAJMOHAN ROYMEDHI

R/O BHARALUMUKH

KUMARPARA

K.R.B. ROAD

GHY-09

P.S.-BHARALUMUKH

DIST-KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781009

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

GOVT OF ASSAM

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

ASSAM

GHY-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

Page No.# 3/18

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI

NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781335

5:DIGANTA BORAH

SIVAMANDIR PATH

KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI-22

ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MR. J KALITA

Advocate for : GA

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

WP(C)/998/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O LT. RAJMOHAN ROY MEDHI R/O BHARALUMUKH KUMARPARA

K.R.B. ROAD

GHY-09

P.S. BHARALUMUKH

DIST. KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM PIN-781009

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

GOVT. OF ASSAM

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

ASSAM

GUWAHATI-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

Page No.# 4/18

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-3.

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI

NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781335

5:HEMAN KUMAR BORAH

SIVAMANDIR PATH

KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI-22

ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MR. J KALITA

Advocate for : GA

ASSAM

appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

WP(C)/996/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O LT. RAJMOHAN ROY MEDHI

R/O BHARALUMUKH

KUMARPARA

K.R.B. ROAD

GHY-09

P.S. BHARALUMUKH

DIST. KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781009

Page No.# 5/18

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

GOVT. OF ASSAM

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

ASSAM

GUWAHATI-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-3.

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI

NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781335

5:HEMAN KUMAR BORAH

SIVAMANDIR PATH

KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI-22

ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MR. J KALITA

Advocate for : GA

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

Page No.# 6/18

WP(C)/1071/2024

BALEN ROY MEDHI

S/O- LATE RAJMOHAN ROYMEDHI

R/O- BHARALUMUKH

KUMARPARA

KRB ROAD

GHY-09

P.S- BHARALUMUKH

DIST- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781009

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR

ASSAM

GHY-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT

ASSAM CHENIKUTHI

GUWAHATI-03

3:THE BID PROCESS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY

DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER

NALBARI ASSAM

PIN-781335

5:DIGANTA BORAH

SIVAMANDIR PATH

KHANAPARA

GUWAHATI-22

ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MR. J KALITA

Advocate for : GA

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

Page No.# 7/18

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

For the Petitioner : Shri J Kalita, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Shri D Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam,

Shri B Chetri, Advocate, R/5.

Date of Hearing : 10.09.2024.

Date of Judgment : 27.09.2024.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

The challenge in these five writ petitions being almost identical and based on

same grounds, those were taken up together for an analogous hearing and are being

disposed of by this common judgment and order. The matters pertain to a tender

process for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Building under Animal Husbandry

& Veterinary Department, Assam. The petitioner in each of the five cases, however, is

the same.

2. As per the facts projected, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on

06.04.2023 by the AH & Vety. Department for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre

Building with Electrification, Water Supply and Sanitary Works etc. at various locations

in the district of Nalbari. In the said tender document, there is a specific clause under

the Qualification Criteria, being Clause 2.A.(g) which provides that a bidder who

quotes the rate beyond 15% below the approved rate would have to submit

justification with proper rate analysis and photographic evidence. It is the case of the

petitioner that in all the writ petitions, the private respondent no. 5 had quoted rate

which was beyond 15% below and accordingly, under the aforesaid clause,

justification was sought for. The justification was purportedly given and after

Page No.# 8/18

consideration of the same, the bids of the private respondent no. 5 in each of the

cases were accepted and accordingly, Work Orders were issued on 06.01.2024.

Sensing some irregularity and foul play with regard to the bid of the private

respondent, details of the justification was sought for under the Right to Information

Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It was revealed that the respondent no. 5 justified the price by

annexing a quotation of one Maa Enterprise from whom construction materials would

be purchased. In the said quotation, a GSTIN number was given. On further enquiries,

the petitioner could learn that the said GISTIN number was not pertaining to Maa

Enterprise and it was of one Dhanjit Gupta with trade name, M/S Joy Maa Hardware

and Sanitary. The petitioner had raised objection before the Department which was

not paid hid to and it is averred that the formal Work Order was actually published on

13.02.2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid process of allotment of the works, the

present writ petitions have been filed.

3. I have heard Shri J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the cases. I

have also heard Shri D Nath, learned Sr. Government Advocate, Assam as well as Shri

B Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in all the writ petitions.

4. Before recording the submissions, it would be convenient to give the details of

the works involved with the writ petitions in a tabular form:

WP(C) Works Description Estimated Cost (Rs.)

996/2024 Construction of Assam Type Sub- Centre Building

with electrification, Water supply and sanitary

works etc. at Naharbari in Nalbari District.

33,71,000.00

998/2024 Construction of Assam Type Sub- Centre Building

with electrification, Water supply and sanitary

33,71,000.00

Page No.# 9/18

works etc. at Hati Namati in Nalbari District.

1069/2024Construction of Assam Type Sub- Centre Building

with electrification, Water supply and sanitary

works etc. at Allia in Nalbari District.

33,71,000.00

1071/2024Construction of Assam Type Sub- Centre Building

with electrification, Water supply and sanitary

works etc. at Balitara in Nalbari District.

33,71,000.00

1178/2024Construction of Assam Type Sub- Centre Building

with electrification, Water supply and sanitary

works etc. at Sagarkuchi in Nalbari District.

33,71,000.00

5. Shri Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 2.A.(g)

of the Tender Document though provides for an exception to accept bids which are

15% below, the same is subject to submission of proper justification with rate

analysis, photographic evidence etc. and even thereafter, the Bid Process Management

Committee (the Committee) has the right to reject the bid if such justifications are

found incorrect after physical verification. It is submitted that the conditions attached

to the aforesaid clause are required to be adhered to in a meticulous manner.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the information regarding the GSTIN of

Maa Enterprise, whose quotation was one of the justifications, it is submitted that the

GSTIN number which was given as 18AQCPG9499H1ZA belongs to one Dhanjit Gupta

of M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary. He submits that a forged document was taken

into recourse by the private respondent no. 5. By drawing the attention of this Court

to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Department filed on 15.07.2024, it is submitted

Page No.# 10/18

that in the same, a clarification dated 11.12.2023 from Maa Enterprise has been

annexed. The said clarification was given to the respondent no. 5 whereby, it was

stated that the quotation of the GSTIN number was inadvertent as the said shop did

not have any GSTIN. It is submitted that such an explanation was wholly unacceptable

as no retailer of construction materials, like rod, sand, cement etc. can do business

without any GSTIN.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also dealt with a verification reports

submitted by the Junior Engineer (HQ) which are all of the same date i.e. 09.10.2023.

Along with the said reports, certain photographs have been annexed regarding the

materials mobilized. It is submitted that apart from there being no Geo-tag, all the

photographs are one and the same. The learned counsel has also taken exception of

the progress report dated 28.02.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the

said affidavit-in-opposition as per which, approximately, 70% of physical progress has

been made. It is submitted that the work order was published only on 13.02.2024 as

would appear from Annexure-A5 and it was not possible to achieve such progress

within 2 weeks.

8. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

respondent no. 5, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been

admitted that the GSTIN number was wrong and that the seller was not having any

such GSTIN at all. He has also raised his grievance with regard to the aspect of

releasing running bills on 21.05.2024 in spite of the interim order passed by this Court

on 06.03.2024. It is submitted that such action is clearly contemptuous and

accordingly, suo moto action is required to be taken by this Court. By referring to the

affidavit-in-reply fled by the petitioner on 02.08.2024 to the affidavit-in-opposition of

the respondent no. 5, he has submitted that the records would reveal that the same

justification has been given for all the parties. In this regard, he has referred to the

Page No.# 11/18

documents annexed as Annexure-A7.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the works could

not have been proceeded on the basis of a fraud involved in such allotment and even

assuming that certain portions of the work have been executed, the same cannot

construe 70% progress as sought to be projected. He accordingly submits that the

work orders are required to be interfered with and the balance of the works are

required to be allotted to the petitioner in accordance with law.

10. Per contra, Shri Nath, learned Sr. Government Advocate has defended the action

for allotment of the works in question. At the outset, he has raised a preliminary

objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions. It is submitted that the petitioner

is not the L2 bidder in all the cases and there are other bidders between the

respondent no. 5 and the petitioner who have not been made party respondents. It is

accordingly submitted that no relief can be claimed by the petitioner.

11. On the merits of the case, more specifically with regard to the requirement of

GSTIN registration, the learned State Counsel has referred to Clause 2.A.(d)(ii) which

necessitates GSTIN registration of the bidder. It is submitted that there is no allegation

against the bidder (respondent no. 5) regarding not having a GSTIN registration and

therefore, the present challenge is not maintainable. In this regard, he has drawn the

attention of this Court to the registration of the respondent no. 5 under the GST which

was duly verified.

12. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on

15.07.2024, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the verification was done on

10.09.2023 as per the decision dated 15.09.2023 and based on the said verification

reports, further steps were taken for allotment of the works. It is submitted that the

Page No.# 12/18

work orders were issued on 06.01.2024 and the date relied upon by the petitioner by

referring to Annexure-5 i.e. 13.02.2024 has nothing to do with the actual date of

issuance. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs of the

construction undertaken and has submitted that as per the progress report dated

28.02.2024, 70% of the works have been completed. He has also submitted that the

Department has taken into consideration the explanation provided that GSTIN of Maa

Enterprise was inadvertently quoted.

13. The learned State Counsel has submitted that in matters relating to tender, the

role of the Court is circumscribed and only when there is gross illegality apparent on

the face of it, there may be a scope for interfering with such process. On the aspect of

restraint to be maintained while exercising powers of judicial review, the learned State

Counsel has relied on the judgments of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro

Rail Corporation Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 and Bharat Coking

Coal Ltd. Vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 759.

14. On the issue of payment being released, the learned State Counsel has

submitted that the interim order was passed by this Court on 06.03.2024 by which

time, 70% of the work was done and therefore, the payment has been made. He has,

however, informed that after the interim order, the constructions have been stopped.

15. Shri B Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 in all the

cases has endorsed the submissions made on behalf of the Department. He has

submitted that under Clause 11.1(viii), the GSTIN registration by a bidder is required

to be submitted. Such requirement has also given under Clause 2.A.(d)(ii) and the

bidder has duly fulfilled the said condition. He has defended the action that while

giving the justification for quoting beyond 15% below the approved rate, a

communication of the supplier was given in which by inadvertence, a GSTIN number

Page No.# 13/18

was provided. It is submitted that there is no requirement that the supplier is required

to have a GSTIN number. He has also relied upon a Gazette Notification dated

03.06.2019 as per which, a person engaged in exclusive supply of goods whose

aggregate turnover in a financial year does not exceed to Rs. 40 lakhs is exempted

from registration under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is submitted

that the respondent no. 5 was found to be the lowest bidder and accordingly, a

decision was taken in the meeting dated 13.10.2023. He has also referred to the

communication dated 11.12.2023 by Maa Enterprise on the issue of GSTIN and the

clarification given by the petitioner on 12.12.2023. It is submitted that the work had

progressed and 80% has been achieved. In support of his submissions, he has relied

upon a judgment of this Court dated 18.02.2022 in the case of M/S Naga Builders

and Suppliers Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., passed in WP(C)/96/2022. In the

aforesaid case, this Court has laid down that when a challenge is made by an

unsuccessful bidder, the Court would be loath to interfere. He, however, clarifies that

so far as the WP(C)/998/2024 is concerned, due to certain boundary dispute, no

construction could be made and therefore, no amount has been released.

16. Shri Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder has submitted that

the progress report dated 28.02.2024 showing 70% of progress is wholly

unacceptable document inasmuch as the work orders were actually published much

later. With regard to the so-called explanation given by Maa Enterprise, the learned

counsel has submitted that the communication does not bear any seal or is given on

any letter-head and the same is simply a typed copy. It is reiterated that the

photographs given to justify the verification reports in all the five cases are exactly the

same which would raise a serious doubt on the bona fide of such exercise. By

referring to the case of Bhaba Dev Mahanta Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in

2022 (6) GLT 698, the learned counsel has submitted that all the clauses of the

tender document are required to be read independently. As regards the preliminary

Page No.# 14/18

objection raised on behalf of the Department on the issue of maintainability, the

learned counsel has submitted that though in three cases, there are two more bidders

above the petitioner, the rates quoted by them was beyond 15% which were also

without justification and therefore, they are not necessary parties. He has also

informed that in WP(C)/998/2024, the petitioner is the L2 bidder and therefore, all the

writ petitions are maintainable.

17. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed on

record have also been carefully examined.

18. To examine the issue which revolves upon the clause relating to a quotation

beyond 15% below the approved rate, it would be convenient if the said provision i.e.

2.A.(g) is extracted hereunder:

“(g) The bidder who quotes the rate equivalent to beyond 15% below the

current DSR should submit the justification of quoting the rate in details

with proper rate analysis along with photographic evidences with their Bid

and the Bid process Management Committee has right to reject the Bid if

his justifications are found incorrect after physical verification.”

19. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would clearly reveal that an exception

has been carved out to consider a rate which is beyond 15% below the current DSR.

The said consideration is subject to a proper justification of the rate in details with

proper rate analysis and photographic evidence and even thereafter, the Committee

has the right to reject the bid if the justifications are found incorrect after physical

verification. The objective of such a clause is apparent which is to ensure that the

quality of the work does not suffer in any way and in certain cases where works are

allotted on exceptionally low rate, it is found that the works are abandoned mid way

Page No.# 15/18

which adversely affects the public interest. The aforesaid clause is a balance to the

process adopted for distribution of State largesse by following a fair and transparent

procedure as well as to protect the public interest wherein, an exceptionally low rate

beyond 15% is also considered which, however, is subject to strict conditions as

mentioned above. While consideration strictly in accordance with the provision is

permitted, the same is required to be examined whether in the instant cases, the

justification put forward by the respondent no. 5 towards the rate quoted is in

accordance with law. The respondent no. 5 has justified the rate by relying upon a

quotation from one Maa Enterprise which had given a GSTIN number. It, however,

transpires that the GSTIN number did not belong to Maa Enterprise but is of another

entity, which is not at all connected. The respondent no. 5 has tried to explain the

position by a further clarificatory letter from Maa Enterprise that the said Enterprise

did not have any GSTIN number. This Court, however finds force in the contentions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner that such explanation is not acceptable inasmuch

as the said clarificatory letter does not bear any seal and is not even issued in the

letter-head of Maa Enterprise.

20. With regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent no. 5 by

referring to the Gazette Notification dated 03.06.2019, though certain entities are

given exemption under the Assam GST Act of 2017, there is nothing on record to show

that Maa Enterprise would fall within the exempted clause. A retailer cannot be

presumed to fall within the exception from the requirement of GST registration without

any materials placed on record, more so when the very purpose of the Act of 2017 is

to bring all business under the purview of the Act.

21. As regards the verification to be done for invoking the aforesaid clause of the

tender pertaining to accepting rates below 15%, it appears that the Junior Engineer

had made a verification by purportedly making a field visit which was communicated

Page No.# 16/18

to the Executive Engineer on 09.10.2023. Along with the said communication, certain

photographs have been annexed. A bare perusal of the photographs which have been

enclosed to an identically written verification report would show that all the

photographs in all the five cases are exactly the same. It is absolutely intriguing as to

how the works which pertain to various locations in the district of Nalbari could be

justified with certain materials which have been stacked in one location. Apart from

their being no Geo-tag in the photographs enclosed, the bare facts that all the

photographs are same raise serious questions on the bona fide. Apart from the aspect

that the photographs which have been annexed to the reports dated 09.10.2023 being

similar for all the five bidders, the same would not have any bearing with the

justification which is envisaged under Clause 2.A(g). It is also failed to be understood

as to how the similar/same photographs could be given for making a field verification

pertaining to five works of different locations.

22. There is another aspect of the matter which has come to the notice of this

Court. On a close perusal of all the writ petitions, it appears that the respondent no. 5

who are different persons in all the cases have one address which is “Sivamandir Path,

Khanapara, Guwahati-22, Assam”. It clearly appears that each of the respondent no. 5

belong to the same family. An explanation has been given by the learned State

Counsel that the works are different and none of the family members offered bid for

the same work. It is, however, noticed that the respondent no. 5 for the works at Hati

Naharbari and Hati Namati [WP(C)/996 and 998/2024, respectively] is the same who

has been allotted the works. Though there may not be a strict restriction on each of

the family members to do business and participate in different tenders, in the instant

case, the works are the same which are, however, spread out in various locations in

the district of Nalbari. The rates which have been offered by the respondent no. 5 in

all the five works involved are all beyond 15% below which obviously require a

justification under the aforesaid clause. Interestingly, all the justifications are identical

Page No.# 17/18

which had relied upon a quotation from one Maa Enterprise giving a particular GSTIN

number. It is, however, not in dispute that the said GSTIN number is not of Maa

Enterprise but of a different entity and the explanation which had given later on is that

Maa Enterprise does not even have a GSTIN number. Without even going into that

aspect as to whether a sale of construction materials on huge quantity can be done by

an entity without a GSTIN number, the nature of clarification given by a document

which does not even bear a seal and not the letter-head of the entity, the Department

was under a higher obligation to make proper verification. As observed above, the

aforesaid clause considering a bid which is beyond 15% below the current DSR was an

exception subject to serious scrutiny and rigours. In the instant case, it however

appears the recourse of the aforesaid provision has been taken only with the purpose

to allot the works to the respondent no. 5 in each of these cases who appear to be the

members of the same family. The decision making process which involves a

verification report dated 09.10.2023 and it is acceptance appear to be done in a

wholly predetermined with which clearly reflects bias and nepotism.

23. As regards the submission made that the work orders were published only on

13.02.2024, this Court is, however, unable to accept the said submission as the work

order is dated 06.01.2024 wherein there is a stipulation of completion of the work

within 180 days. Therefore, the progress report that 70% of the work has been done

cannot be presumed to be erroneous.

24. It has been submitted that in spite of the interim order, payment of running bills

has been made. Though ideally Leave should have been taken from this Court, since

part of the work has been done prior to passing of the interim order, this Court is not

inclined to enter into the said issue in these proceedings.

25. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made

Order downloaded on 04-08-2025 10:06:22 PMPage No.# 18/18

above, this Court is of the opinion that the process adopted for allotting the works to

the respondent no. 5 is not in accordance with law and accordingly, the Work Orders

dated 06.01.2024 are interfered with. It is, however, made clear that since there was

certain progress pursuant to the aforesaid Work Orders, the balance of the works are

to be done through the eligible bidders who would be qualified for the same pursuant

to the tender process. So far as WP(C)/998/2024 is concerned, since no progress

could be made, the work is to be allotted to the eligible bidder.

26. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated above.

27. The interim orders passed earlier stand merged with the final order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant