PUL PUL MANUFACTURE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-116
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 29,2018

Pul Pul Manufacture Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 4 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S Newar and Mr. B Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) The petitioner is a proprietor firm carrying out its business under the name and style of M/S Pul Pul Manufacture. The respondent No. 3 i.e. the Mission Director, Rashtriya Uchchatar Siksha Abhiyan (for short, RUSA), Government of Assam vide its Memo No. RUSA/E-Procurement/135/2017/377 on 31.07.2017 invited 4 short e-tender through eprocurement portal (Technical Bid and Financial Bid) from the reputed firms/ manufacturers etc for supply of furniture at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Model Degree College at Behali, Amjonga, Dalgaon, Eraligo (Science), Assam for a quantity of 4 (four) packages. The petitioner along with others, in all six bidders participated in the said tender process. Technical bids for all the said 4 NITs were opened on 18.08.2017 at 3 P.M. in the office of the Mission Director, RUSA, Kahilipara at Guwahati and only 2 bidders i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 were found to be technically fit as per the terms of the conditions of the said NIT dated 31.07.2017. The technical bid of the petitioner firm was rejected on the ground that the firm has not submitted minimum turnover audited financial balance sheet, PPF registration, Compliance Certificate and all items partially quoted. The petitioner submitted all the documents which are alleged not to have been submitted both in the hard copies, soft copies and also in the CD although at the time of uploading the same in the website, the same did not get uploaded due to some technical problem in the system/ website for no fault of the petitioner. The price bid was also opened at the second half on 18.08.2017 and the respondents No. 4 and 5 were selected and work orders were subsequently issued to the said respondents on 21.08.2017.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5 are liable to be quashed and set aside for favouritism shown by the respondent State towards respondents No. 4 and 5 though they ought to have been technically disqualified. All the documents were not sealed and signed by the authorised representatives, variation in TIN of respondent No. 5, selection done at a very high price well above the prevailing market value. Accordingly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire selection process is sham one to favour the respondents No. 4 and 5 inasmuch as the price bids of the present petitioner was much lesser than the one quoted by the private respondents. There being no transparency in the public procurement, the tender process cannot be allowed to remain at the whims and caprices of the respondents No. 2 and 3. For the said reason, the petitioner sought for declaring the bids of the respondents No. 4 and 5 to be technically ineligible and to rescind and recall from giving effect to the decision of awarding the contract of supply of furniture to the said respondents through appropriate writ(s).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.