Subal Chandra Das v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 03.06.2024

Heard Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid pursuant to the tender notice No. 01/2022 dated 14.03.2022.

¶2The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's bid was rejected on the ground that his tender was below the total minimum tender value for seven years, i.e. Rs.80,54,200/-. He submits that in the comparative statement made by the State respondents, the petitioner's seven years grant total bid amount has been shown as Rs.78,68,560/-, which is not in consonance with the rate quoted by him in his tender documents. He submits that the rates quoted by him in his tender documents would show that seven years grand total bid amount of the petitioner would be above 81 Lakhs.

¶3The petitioner's counsel thus prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondents to verify the bid amount of the petitioner and to make necessary correction to the comparative statement with regard to the total bid value submitted by the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon page 28 of the writ petition, in support of his submission that the petitioner's total bid value for seven years was beyond 81 Lakhs.

¶4Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the AFDC submits that the AFDC will conduct a verification of the petitioner's bid amount and if it is found that the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner's total bid amount was beyond 81 Lakhs, the petitioner's tender would be declared to be a valid tender, provided all other eligibility criteria have been fulfilled by the petitioner. He further submits that in the event the respondent No. 5, whose bid was Rs.1,41,64,090/-, declines settlement of the fishery, the offer of settlement of the fishery would be done with the petitioner at the rate/bid of the respondent No. 5, as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, provided the petitioner's verified bid amount is above the minimum tender value and he fulfills all the other criteria required in the NIT.

¶5In view of the submission made by the parties, there is nothing to adjudicate in the matter. Accordingly, the respondents shall verify the bid amount submitted by the petitioner and if the petitioner's bid amount is above the minimum bid value set by the respondents, the petitioner's bid would be considered to be a valid bid, provided that he fulfills all other eligibility criteria required in the NIT.

¶6The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010106192024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/2818/2024o SUBALoCHANDRAoDASo S/O-oPULINoCHANDRAoDAS,o RESIDENToOFoVILL.-oSRIPURoPART-I,o P.O.-oFULBARI,oDIST.-oCACHAR,oASSAM,o PIN-o788802. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORSo TOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEo GOVT.oOFoASSAM,o DEPARTMENToOFoFISHERIES,oDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-6. 2:THEoASSAMoFISHERIESoDEVELOPMENToCORPORATIONo(AFDC)oLIMITED oVIPoROADoCHACHOL oGUWAHATI-o36o DIST.-oKAMRUPoMETRO oASSAMo REPRESENTEDoBYoITSoMANAGINGoDIRECTOR. 3:THEoMANAGINGoDIRECTOR oASSAMoFISHERIESoDEVELOPMENToCORPORATIONo(AFDC)oLIMITED oVIPoROADoCHACHOLoGUWAHATI-o36. 4:THEoDISTRICToFISHERYoDEVELOPMENToOFFICER oCACHARoSILCHARoPIN-o788801. 5:KAJALoKUMARoDAS oS/O-oKALIoMOHANoDASo RESIDENToOFoVILL-oSRIPURoPART-I oP.O.-oFULBARIoDIST.-oCACHARo ASSAM oPIN-o788802o Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA