BRAHMAPUTRA UDYOG PVT. LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the undated and unsigned Evaluation Sheet (Annexure-5); the minutes of the meeting and notification dtd. 5/8/2023 whereby the respondent Nos.3 to 8 have been chosen as the six top vendors for awarding the contract of "parallel rate contract for providing drinking water House Service Connections in lots of 5,000 each for total of approximately 30,000 households in South-Central and North Guwahati area providing all the required goods and materials, install the employer supplied water meters, install the piles and accessories, excavation and road restoration works all complete'.

(2.) From the records, it reveals that the respondent No.2 herein had published a Notice Inviting Bids for providing drinking water House Service Connections by IFB No.GWSP/LCB/C-12B1/2023-86 dtd. 7/5/2023 in respect to the works described herein above. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Bids, as many as 16 bidders participated. The Tender Committee in its meeting held on 18/7/2023, evaluated the bids of all the 16 participating bidders. Thereupon, after detail evaluation of the bids, the Tender Committee found bids of 12 bidders meeting the minimum requirement in the Inviting for Bids (IFB) whereas 4 non-compliant bidders were rejected. Thereupon, in terms with para 2.2 of the IFB, and more particularly, paragraph No.2.2.1, the evaluation was carried out. While carrying out the said evaluation, the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.3 to 8 were awarded the following marks:-

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said recommendation and the subsequent awarding of the contracts to the respondent Nos.3 to 8 on 5/8/2023, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. Amongst the various contentions which have been forwarded, it reveals that one of the contention was that while granting marks for work experience, the marks were awarded taking into account the House Service Connections of one D. Kumar and Company which was otherwise a disqualified bidder.