RIDALIN LAW Vs. J.H.A.D.C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner pursuant to an NIT dtd. 18/10/2021, floated by the respondents, calling for bids for operation of a check station at Mookyndur, West Jaintia Hills, came out as a highest bidder after evaluation by the Tender Committee, but however, the respondent No. 3 by a decision taken on 8/2/2022, rejected the appointment of the writ petitioner as agent, on the ground that the check station was situated on the right side of the highway from Jowai to Shillong, which did not have enough space for vehicles to stop for checking, and that the quoted rate was unrealistic and inflated, amongst other reasons. The respondents then vide impugned letter dtd. 9/2/2022, appointed the private respondent No. 7, who was the second highest bidder as the agent to operate the check station at Mookyndur. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The undisputed fact in this matter is that, the petitioner is the highest bidder in a tender process, which consisted of a Technical Bid and a Financial Bid. By all accounts, the Bids having been scrutinized and examined by a duly constituted Tender Committee, which had found the petitioner to be the most suitable, she should have been called by the respondents to formalize an agreement, to operate the said check station.

(3.) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of the contract to the petitioner inspite of being the highest bidder is illegal and motivated. He submits that the respondent No. 3, once the Tender Committee had recommended the petitioner had no jurisdiction to sit on top of the findings and award, the contract to the second highest bidder. It is contended that, the reasons stated by the respondent No. 3 in its decision dtd. 8/2/2022, is misplaced, inasmuch as, the Tender Committee before finalizing the Technical Bids had conducted a physical verification of the site for the check station offered by the petitioner, and had found the same to be suitable. He further submits that, the award of the contract to the private respondent is therefore, illegal and that the respondents are liable to be directed to settle the contract with the petitioner without any further delay.