SURUJ JAMAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark cases of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 has laid down certain principles to be followed in matters pertaining to distribution of State largesse by way of tender. In paragraph 23 of the said judgment, the following has been stated:

(2.) In another landmark case, namely, Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the owner/maker of the contract is the best person whose interpretation is generally required to be accepted.

(3.) In fact the aforesaid principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about two decades earlier in the case of Tata Cellular which would be referred to later in this judgment. With that background, this Court is required to consider and determine the issue raised in this bunch of writ petitions. In these writ petitions, a common challenge has been made to a particular clause of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) floated by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department (P&RD) for settlement of various Markets, Ghats, Par Ghats, Meen Mahals etc. The settlements are pertaining to the district of Darrang. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the Clause, in question, is in the teeth of Article 14 as it gives an undue advantage to a class of bidders which is against the concept of maintaining fairness and transparency in tender system.