ASSAM JATIYA VEDYALAYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the selection of the respondent No.4 for the grant of a contract for designing, supplying, installation, testing and commissioning of Son-Et-Lumiere (Sound & Light) at Srimanta Sankardev Kalakhetra at Guwahati, the writ petitioner, a unsuccessful tenderer, has approached this Court challenging the decision making process leading to the award of the aforesaid contract.

(2.) The facts as unfolded by elaborate pleadings of the parties as well as the records in original as produced by the respondent No.2 may be briefly noted as hereunder:- A notice dated 15.9.2000 was published in the news paper on 27.9.2000 inviting sealed tenders for the grant of the contract as noted above. The last date of submission of tenders was 11.10.2000 which date was however subsequently extended to 24.10.2000 and thereafter to 27.10.2000. On 27.10.2000 the tenders received (three in number) were opened in the presence of the tenderers or their authorised representatives. A comparative chart was prepared in respect of the tenders received and placed before the tender committee constituted earlier by a Government notification to go into the matter. The tender committee in its meeting held on 5.1.2001 recorded that none of the tenderers who had submitted tenders pursuant to the NIT, fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the NIT and therefore two options were open to it firstly, to call for fresh bids and alternatively to consider the tenders as received. The tender committee further recorded the fact that for the reasons assigned, it was proceeding to evaluate the tender papers already received and that to examine the technical parameters submitted by the respective tenderers, a technical committee was constituted. The tender Committee further resolved that the script of the 'Sound & Light Projrct' was to be submitted to all the three tenderers so as to enable them to stage a presentation of the show as conceptualized by the respective tenderers. The script having been made available to all the tenderers, the petitioner and M/s Buildrite Construction submitted their presentation on 23.1.2001 whereas the respondent No.4 submitted its presentation on 24.1.2001. All the aforesaid presentations were made before the technical committee. What transpired in the course of the aforesaid presentations has not been recorded in the form of minutes but it is evident from the affidavit of the respondent No.2 that all the tenderers were advised to make necessary modifications in certain technical aspects of their offers which were considered necessary by the experts of the technical committee. All the three tenderers were also informed that they need not arrange 'Sound Track Development' which would be done separately. The tenderers were also asked to include certain technical features which were absent in the tenders submitted. Accordingly, revised proposals were submitted by the tenderers alongwith the revised cost of the project. While the respondent No.4 submitted the aforesaid revised proposal on 27.1.2001, the writ petitioner and the other tenderer submitted its revised proposal on 29.1.2001. On 2.2.2001, a meeting of the tender Committee was held and it appears from the recorded minutes of the said meeting that the respondent No.4 was recommended by the technical committee. The aforesaid recommendations appear to have been made primarily on the ground that the presentation made by the respondent No.4 on24.1.2001 was technically the best. On 6.2.2001, the reasons in support of the decision of the tender Committee for recommending the respondent No.4 appear to have been recorded. The tender committee while recording its reasons, had also recommended that the respondent No.2 should carry out further negotiation with the respondent No.4 for deciding the final cost of the project. Thereafter, it appears that on 15.3.2001 the Managing Director of the respondent No.2 issued a letter to the respondent No.4 to the effect that the rate quoted by it is high and that they should come for necessary discussion on 21.3.2001. Thereafter the respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 22.3.2001 stating that no reduction of price is feasible but as a special gesture they are willing to offer a reduction of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs. Thereafter the meeting of the Technical Committee was held on 26.3.2001 wherein it was decided that respondent No.4 should be asked to submit technical details and specifications of each item and the matter be reconsidered on 30.3.2001. The respondent No.4 accordingly submitted the details/specifications as asked for and another meeting of the technical committee was held on 30.3.2001 wherein a decision was taken to award the contract to respondent No.4 within the amount of Rs.65.00 Lakhs. The respondent No.4 was required to communicate its acceptance of the aforesaid offer within 7.4.2001. On the same day, i.e. 30.3.2001, the Managing Director of the respondent No.2 wrote a letter to the respondent No.4 asking the said respondent to intimate its willingness to execute the work within the estimated amount of Rs.65.00 Lakhs and to submit detail design and specification, if so agreeable. On 5.4.2001, the respondent No.4 submitted a revised price schedule giving the bill of quantities, unit price and total price for supply and installation of each item. The total revised price worked out by the respondent No.4 stood at Rs.66,28,397.00. As would be evident from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, after the respondent No.4 was asked to indicate its willingness to execute the work within the amount of Rs.65.00 Lakhs, the site was visited and a better, economical and technically viable system of sound and dimmer system was devised which reduced the quantity of luminaries, Lamps and cables without however comprising with the quality, technicality and specification of the tender committee and the project and, as such, the price quoted in the tender could be reduced to a sum of Rs.66,22,397.00. The facts as unfolded would further go to show that the revision in the technical aspects of the offer on account of which reduction of price as noted above was made possible did not go back to the technical committee for its consideration before the work order dated 19.4.2001 was issued in favour of the respondent No.4.

(3.) Before adverting to the submissions and counter submissions of the rival parties it may be appropriate to note the reasons for the impugned decision as recorded by the technical committee on 6.2.2001 as under: