DROSHING LYNGDOH Vs. SHILLONG CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of December 13, 2021 by which the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. The challenge in the writ petition was to the first respondent, Shillong Cantonment Board, awarding a contract in favour of the fifth respondent herein despite the appellant's perception that the fifth respondent was not qualified to participate in the bidding as the fifth respondent may not have possessed the requisite experience in terms of one of the general conditions indicated in the tender papers.

(2.) The relevant condition is found at the sixth clause under the general terms and conditions laid down in the tender documents. There is no doubt that the relevant clause indicates the minimum experience that the bidder must possess to be entitled to obtain the contract. The relevant clause is set out:

(3.) Though there is nothing shown from the tender documents by the appellant that would indicate that a bidder would have to comply with all the conditions indicated in the general terms for the bid to be even considered, there is sufficient basis to the appellant's assertion that the manner in which clause 6 under the general terms is worded, it is inescapable that the minimum experience as stipulated therein ought to be possessed by a bidder for such bidder to be eligible to obtain the work, subject to the commercial and other terms. To such extent, the case brought by the appellant is sound.