MAA TARINI TRADERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The alleged arbitrary course of action pursued by the Respondent authorities in connection with the tender floated for granting quarrying lease in a 'reverse auction process', eliminating the qualified bidder / Petitioner, by considering the fresh quote of the already rejected bidder along with bids quoted by four other persons within the extended time and allotting the same to the 4th Respondent (father of the rejected bidder) by drawing 'lots' (as all the quotes were of uniform rate), is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) At the very outset it has to be mentioned that, scrutiny is being conducted by this Court only to the permissible extent in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court as per ever so many judgments including in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another, (2016) 16 SCC 818, State of Jharkhand and Others v. CWE-Soma Consortium, (2016) 14 SCC 172, and the recent one in The Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2019 (11) SCALE 592, and such other verdicts to the effect that the judicial scrutiny shall be with utmost restraint; that it is the prerogative of the Government / Awarder to accept or reject the tender; that the probe shall confine to the 'decision making process' and not the decision and further that no interference shall be made unless it is arbitrary, irrational, perverse or against public interest.

(3.) The 2nd Respondent floated Annexure-P/2 Notification Inviting Tender (NIT) on 09.10.2019 inviting bids for grant of quarry lease of ordinary sand at various sand mines located in the District Raigarh in the State, clearly giving the terms and conditions with reference to the relevant rules i.e. The Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2019'). As per the said rules, the bids have to be submitted separately (Technical Bid and Price Bid respectively) and the bidding is by way of Reverse Auction process. According to the Petitioner, he satisfied all the requirements and submitted the bid accordingly in respect of the Tender for 'Raigarh-D'. Bid was submitted by another person as well, by name one Gopesh Jaisawal. After the last date for submitting the bid, the technical bids were opened on the next date i.e. 06.11.2019 and on evaluation, both the bidders were held as technically qualified. Thereafter, the price bids were opened; when it was found that both the bidders had quoted the rock bottom rate (Rs. 46 per cu.m.), below which nobody can quote as per the relevant Rules / NIT. But, in the case of the other bidder by name Gopesh Jaisawal, it was found that the requisite extent of 'bid security' was not deposited by him and hence his price bid was rejected. Instead of identifying the Petitioner as the 'preferred bidder' to be proceeded with further steps for declaring him as the successful bidder and awarding the quarrying lease in favour of the Petitioner, the 2 nd Respondent, as per Annexure-P/1 dated 13.11.2019, invited fresh bids granting 'seven more days' and obtained four more bids. In the four additional bids so submitted, it included the bid of the person by name Gopesh Jaisawal (whose bid was already rejected) as well, who could not have been permitted to participate in the process; by virtue of the specific bar under Clause 6.8 of the NIT. The names of these bidders and the Petitioner (who were found as having quoted the rock bottom rate at Rs.46 per cu.m.) were subjected to 'lot', in which the 4th Respondent (father of the rejected bidder) turned to be the lucky man and hence he was declared as the 'preferred bidder' in respect of the group 'Raigarh-D'. This made the Petitioner to challenge the proceedings by filing writ petition, seeking to set aside Annexure-P/1 Notification dated 13.11.2019 and also to direct the 2nd Respondent to execute the quarrying lease in favour of the Petitioner. The prayers have been opposed by the Respondents pointing out that the course and proceedings pursued by the 2nd respondent are valid in all respects. Separate returns have been filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 3 - State of Chhattisgarh and the 4th Respondent.