Kinaram Boro v. The Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors

ORDER

06.02.2024

¶1Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the BTC.

¶2The petitioner's case is that by a Tender Notice dated 24.05.2023, the Block Development Department, Dalgaon Sialmari Development Block, Kharupetia invited bids for settlement of a number of markets/go-hats/Parkings/parghats/ferries/cattle pounds, etc. for the year : 2023 – 2024, that is, from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024 under the Dalgaon Sialmari Development Block, Kharupetia. The last date of submission of bids was fixed as 15.06.2023. One of the parking places sought to be so settled was Koupati Bus Parking ['the Parking Place', for short]. In response to the Tender Notice, 6 [six] nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 5, submitted their bids. The respondent BTC authorities prepared a comparative statement, wherefrom it is revealed that the petitioner had offered a bid value of Rs. 49,755/-, whereas the respondent no. 5 had offered a bid value of Rs. 45,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that despite offering a higher bid value, the respondent BTC Page No.# 3/5 authorities proceeded to approve the bid of the respondent no. 5 for settlement by its Approval Order dated 03.07.2023. Subsequently, an Order of Settlement for the Koupati Bus Parking has been issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 on 27.07.2023. The petitioner has contended that his bid has been rejected on the purported ground that no GST Certificate has been annexed with the bid, whereas there is no condition in the Tender Notice that submission of a GST Certificate was mandatory. The tender condition had mentioned that a bidder had to submit a GST Clearance Certificate only if applicable.

¶3Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel submits that as per the affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, the bid of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the Original Tax Clearance Certificate from the concerned Block Development Officer and the GST Clearance Certificate was not signed. She also submits that as per the original records which she has brought today, the petitioner has not submitted the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy. She accordingly submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the respondents in rejecting the bid of the petitioner.

¶4I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶5Clause 8(b), (f) and (j) of the NIT dated 24.05.2023 states as follows : "8(b) Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy.

(f) GST Clearance, if applicable.

(j) Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer." Page No.# 4/5

¶6As per Clause 8(b), the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy have to be furnished by the tenderer. A perusal of the official records which has been brought today shows that the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy had not been submitted by the petitioner along with his bid documents.

¶7In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court has held that the owner/employer of a project, having authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and appreciate it's requirements and interpret it's documents. As Clause 8(b) of the Tender Notice required Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy to be a part of the tender documents, the non-fulfilment of the said condition by a tenderer would amount to not fulfilling an essential condition of a tender. Thus, without going into the issue of whether the tender of the petitioner fails, in view of the petitioner not having submitted the Original Tax Clearance Certificate or furnishing a non-signed GST Clearance Certificate, this writ petition is disposed of only on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the essential condition of the Tender Notice provided in Clause 8(b).

¶8The above being said, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with Clause 8(b) of the Tender Notice, requiring him to submit the Original Land Patta and Jamabandi Copy, this Court is of the view that the petitioner could not have been selected as the successful tenderer, in pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 24.05.2023 as a mandatory condition had not been fulfilled by the petitioner. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the selection of the respondent no.5. Page No.# 5/5

¶9The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010173762023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4530/2023o KINARAMoBOROo S/O-oLATEoDHONIoRAMoBORO,o VILL-oLODABARI,oP.O-oBENGALIGAON,o DIST-oUDALGURI,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCILoANDo4oORSo REP.oBYoITSoPRINCIPALoSECRETARY,oKOKRAJAHAR,oASSAM. 2:THEoCHAIRMAN oMARKEToSETTLEMENToCOMMITTEEo oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 3:THEoJOINToSECRETARY oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 4:THEoBLOCKoDEVELOPMENToOFFICER oDALGAONoSIALMARIoDEVELOPMENToBLOCKo oKHARUPETIA. 5:RANSAIGWRAoBORO oS/O-oBHAJESoCHoBORO o R/O-oLODABARI oP.O-oDALAKATIoBOROoBAZAR Page No.# 2/5 DIST- UDALGURI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA