BRUSHLIN M. SANGMA Vs. GHADC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Service was sought to be affected by the respondent No. 3, but as per the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, it seems that the respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the same. As there is some urgency in the matter and the main respondents are the respondent No. 1 and 2/GHADC whereas, the respondent No. 3 is only a beneficiary of the largesse of the respondent No. 1 and 2, this matter is taken up today for hearing on the interim prayer.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the successful tenderer for Rongram market by making a bid of Rs. Rs. 20,10,200/- (Rupees twenty lakhs ten thousand and two hundred) only and the name of the writ petitioner as successful tenderer was also declared by the respondent No. 1 and 2 for the said market. However, the petitioner submits that strangely the respondent No. 1 and 2 on the basis of a meeting held on 12.02.2019 had decided to award the tender to the next highest bidder (respondent No. 3) for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2 is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and though, the scope of judicial review is limited in tender matters, the instant case is a fit case for interference, inasmuch as the principles of natural justice have been violated and the impugned action of the respondent is highly arbitrary.