B K CONSTRUCTION Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, NHM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the NHM and Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3.

(2.) This writ petition is preferred challenging the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee (in short Technical Committee) in declaring the bid of respondent No. 3 to be technically responsive in the Tender Process relating to work of up-gradation of existing Tangla CHC to SDCH in Udalguri district. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not furnish the details of the subcontracting firm while making proposal for sub contract and the Technical Committee though rejected such proposal but declared it to be a technically responsive bidder allowing the respondent No.3 to have tie up with the same entity for using Electrical license.

(3.) Initially interim order prayed for by the petitioner was not granted by this court and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench by order dtd. 10/9/2021 passed in WA 194/2021 was pleased to remand the matter to this court to reconsider the issue whether, despite being nonresponsive on the ground as alleged by the writ appellant, the work can still be awarded to the respondent No. 3. While remanding back the matter and till such a decision by the court, it was directed to the authorities not to issue any work order.