LALDAWNGLIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl floated notice inviting tender dated 29.04.2016 inviting interested persons/bonafide citizen of India to supply rice for the State of Mizoram. The 3 (three) petitioners along with 26 others responded to the notice inviting tender. Thereafter, comparative statement of rates for supply of rice amongst the 29 tenderers was prepared. The State Purchase Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as "SPAB") held its meeting on 25.05.2016 and on consideration of the comparative statement of rates offered by the tenderers with their samples along with due consideration to experience and financial soundness of the tenderers, the SPAB made recommendation which are extracted herein below:-

(2.) Heard Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

(3.) Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that after the supply order dated 05.08.2016 was issued in favour of the respondent No.3, an agreement deed was signed on 05.08.2016 between the respondent No.3. He submits that the respondent No.3 did not bid for supply of rice in response to the NIT dated 29.4.2016. Further, the terms and conditions of the NIT more importantly condition No. 3 provides that no appointment of supplier will be made unless he/she is a valid tenderer. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that when the respondent No.3 was not a valid tenderer in response to the NIT dated 29.04.2016, the respondent Government could not have settled for supply of rice to the State of Mizoram with the respondent No. 3. It is also submitted that in the SPAB meeting held on 19.07.2016, when the said board was of the view that Rs. 2500 per quintal would be reasonable and workable rate both from the point of view of the supplier and the Government for the purchase of rice for the Public Distribution System, the petitioners were not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before selection of the respondent No.3 for supply of rice. Further, from amongst the 29 quotationers who had responded to the NIT dated 29.04.2016, there were as many as 20 tenderers who have quoted rates below Rs. 2500 per quintal while 9 of them quoted rate above Rs. 2500 per quintal. However, the State respondents have decided to select respondent No. 3 and that too without ascertaining as to whether the respondent No.3 has fulfilled the terms and conditions laid down in the NIT. The same would reflect that the actions of the respondents are bias thereby prejudicing the case of the petitioners.