BALEN ROY MEDHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these five writ petitions being almost identical and based on same grounds, those were taken up together for an analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The matters pertain to a tender process for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Building under Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam. The petitioner in each of the five cases, however, is the same.

(2.) As per the facts projected, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 6/4/2023 by the AH and Vety. Department for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Building with Electrification, Water Supply and Sanitary Works etc. at various locations in the district of Nalbari. In the said tender document, there is a specific clause under the Qualification Criteria, being Clause 2.A.(g) which provides that a bidder who quotes the rate beyond 15% below the approved rate would have to submit justification with proper rate analysis and photographic evidence. It is the case of the petitioner that in all the writ petitions, the private respondent no. 5 had quoted rate which was beyond 15% below and accordingly, under the aforesaid clause, justification was sought for. The justification was purportedly given and after consideration of the same, the bids of the private respondent no. 5 in each of the cases were accepted and accordingly, Work Orders were issued on 6/1/2024. Sensing some irregularity and foul play with regard to the bid of the private respondent, details of the justification was sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It was revealed that the respondent no. 5 justified the price by annexing a quotation of one Maa Enterprise from whom construction materials would be purchased. In the said quotation, a GSTIN number was given. On further enquiries, the petitioner could learn that the said GISTIN number was not pertaining to Maa Enterprise and it was of one Dhanjit Gupta with trade name, M/S Joy Maa Hardware and Sanitary. The petitioner had raised objection before the Department which was not paid hid to and it is averred that the formal Work Order was actually published on 13/2/2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid process of allotment of the works, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) I have heard Shri J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the cases. I have also heard Shri D Nath, learned Sr. Government Advocate, Assam as well as Shri B Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in all the writ petitions.