LLINDA MARBANIANG RIPNAR Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts are that the respondent vide an NIT dtd. 29/6/2022 had invited bids for auction / sale of 12 numbers of old vehicles. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for 1 vehicle and was the second highest bidder for a total of 7 other vehicles listed in the tender. The petitioner was then invited to attend a negotiation Committee meeting on 30/9/2022, wherein she was informed that as the highest bidder for the 7 other vehicles no longer wished to take part in the tender process, the petitioner being the second highest bidder was therefore offered the opportunity to acquire the said 7 vehicles at the rate set by the respondent. Thereafter, on being unable to meet the rate given by the respondent, the petitioner agreed to an increase of Rs.10,000.00 per vehicle which was agreed upon by the concerned respondent. However, as nothing transpired pursuant to the said negotiation, the petitioner sent multiple reminders to the respondent and it was only after several months, when by letter dated 19- 01-2024, she was informed that due to the withdrawal of the initial highest bidder, and the Committee formed to negotiate with the petitioner, though had negotiated the rate, the Central Purchase Committee found the offer, after review, unsatisfactory. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the negotiated bid, even though the tender condition at Clause No. 3, had2025:MLHC:616 prescribed that on the failure of the selected tenderer to pay the entire cost of vehicles, the offer would be given to the next highest bidder, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Mr. N.Khera, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the terms of the tender, the petitioner being the next highest bidder for the 7 other vehicles should have been considered the successful bidder as the rate offered by the petitioner at Rs.10,000.00 more than the quoted rate had been agreed upon by the Tender Negotiation Committee. He further submits that the rejection on the ground that the offer of the petitioner was below the base rate or reserved price is baseless, inasmuch as, no base price had been mentioned in the tender document. Further, it is contended that for the vehicle being No. ML-05A-7870 (Mini truck) wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder, the respondents immediately on the payment of the quoted amount of Rs.1,05,600.00 had issued lifting orders dtd. 6/2/2023, authorising the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle. The very fact that the petitioner was permitted to take possession, it is argued goes to show that there was no base price fixed, or that the same was a consideration for the respondent. He therefore submits, that even after due negotiation, the offer of the petitioner being arbitrarily rejected citing the reason that the same was below the base price and that it was on the directions of the Central Purchase Committee is illegal. It is finally submitted that the respondent2025:MLHC:616 having not adhered to the conditions contained in the tender document, their action in rejecting the petitioner's bid is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the decision to reject the bid of the petitioner was decided by the Central Purchase Committee, even though an increased offer had been made, was that the same was still below the rate fixed by the Transport Department, Government of Meghalaya. It is then further submitted that on the failure of the highest bidder to lift the vehicles due to financial issues, the respondent considering the quoted rate of the petitioner compared to the base rate of the Transport Department, had invited the petitioner for negotiation through its Sub-Committee on 10/3/2023, and though the Sub- Committee had recommended the petitioner on the enhanced price, the same still being below the base rate, was not accepted by the Central Purchase Committee in its meeting held on 1/6/2023.