ABINASH NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that he responded to an E-Auction Notice dtd. 2/3/2023 floated by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia in respect of Item No. 3 i.e., N.KD-B-4 Khudnabari Mining Contract Area. The period of contract is for seven (7) years and the intending bidders are to deposit an earnest money of Rs.20,51,000.00. According to the petitioner, although he submitted all the requisite materials that was required, his technical bid was rejected by the respondent authorities by giving five (5) grounds namely, (i) Provident Fund return not submitted (ii) Employee's State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) return not submitted (iii) Bakijai Certificate not submitted (iv) Bid document digitally not signed (v) Facts and affidavit not submitted as per the format. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the first ground of rejection of his technical bid, the petitioner had submitted a declaration to the effect that if the work is allotted to him, he would provide EPF and ESI within one (1) month. The learned counsel in this connection refers to Annexure-J at page no. 93 of the writ petition. He also submits that the respondent no. 5 also did not submit his ESIC returns but his technical bid was accepted. The learned counsel submits that in respect of the ground No. 3 for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner i.e., for not having submitted Bakijai Certificate, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner inadvertently did not submit the same although he had made a mention in the affidavit he submitted as per the prescribed format. He submits that the same otherwise cannot be the ground for rejecting his bid. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Md. Bahar Uddin -Vs- Assam Fisheries Corporation Ltd. and Others 2017 (3) GLR 783, Kapili Nadi Matshyajibi Samati Ltd. -Vs- State of Assam and Ors. 2019 (3) GLT 351 and Order dtd. 29/9/2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 294/2011 (Abu Talib -Vs- Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.) . The learned counsel in respect of the fourth ground of rejection that the bid letter not being digitally signed submits that the petitioner in fact signed the bid letter digitally but the annexed documents were signed by hand. He submits that if such discrepancy was found, the petitioner ought to have been given two (2) chances to upload and sign the bid document on or before the due date and time in terms of Clause 8A(b)(i) of the bid document. However, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner.