JESPAR I SLONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) In this appeal the appellant questions the correctness and legality of the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated 28-1-2003 made in Writ Appeal No. 710/2002 confirming the judgment dated 7-11-2002 made by the learned single Judge of the same High Court at Shillong Bench in W.P. (C) No. 355(SH)/2002. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The State of Meghalaya owns a weigh bridge at Morkjniange which it had decided to lease out to contractors who were willing to take it on lease on yearly basis. For the said purpose it issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) from interested persons for operating the said weigh bridge. Pursuant to the said notification number of tenderers offered their bids. On 11-2-2002, the respondent-State accepted the bid of one Smt. Nila Niangti, respondent No. 5 herein, which was for a sum of Rs. 1.21 crores and the contract was settled in her favour. One of the bidders who participated in the said tender challenged the said acceptance of the bid before the High Court in W.P. No. 34 (SH) of 2002, inter alia, on the ground that the said acceptance was contrary to the prescribed guidelines and the bid amount accepted was speculatory and predatory in nature. The learned single Judge who heard the said writ petition accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that the bid offered by the 5th respondent herein was speculatory and predatory in nature. According to the learned Judge the approximate value of the contract would have been only Rs. 40,29,600/- which figure the learned Judge arrived at by taking into consideration a report submitted by the enforcement staff of the Department of Transport. On the said basis while setting aside the acceptance of the bid of 5th respondent herein the Court directed the respondent to call for fresh tenders and re-examine and re-assess the value of tender keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment. A further direction was given that a fresh tender should be called for and the exercise of acceptance of that tender should be made within a period of 45 days from the date of the said judgment.