AJIT BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tender process for awarding the contract to run the catering restaurant in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati is the subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding. Pending decision of the assailment, this Court permitted the petitioner to run the said canteen.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. M. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the official respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner has averred that on being asked to start the canteen for the pressing need of the Gauhati Medical College Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the 'gmch'), he did so and the arrangement was approved by the Superintendent, Gauhati Medical College on 14. 6. 1990. As required, he deposited the running water and the electric charges with effect from 1. 7. 1990. He was in the year 2002 asked to shift the canteen to another room within the hospital campus as the earlier room was required to open the Blood Bank. The new room had no infrastructure for running the canteen and being assured that the petitioner would be allowed to conduct his business for a reasonable period of time so as to enable him to recover the investments made, he spent huge amount of money therefor. While the petitioner was continuing as such to the satisfaction of all concerned including the doctors and nurses of the hospital by providing good quality food and services, the respondent authorities by a tender notice dated 2. 2. 2005 and re-tender notice dated 28. 3. 2005 invited tenders from experienced caterers for running the said canteen. This move, according to the petitioner, was in breach of the promise to permit him to operate the canteen without any time limit. The petitioner has assailed the process on the ground of promissory estoppel. Apart therefrom, according to him, the stipulations in the NIT are deficient in material particulars inasmuch as, the same do not disclose the procedure for opening the tenders or the mode of making the security deposit. Additionally, the NIT had not been widely published and the time allowed for submission of tenders was insufficient. The petitioner, however grudgingly participated in the process. His grievance is that, though he was the most suitable tender, on extraneous considerations and without resorting to any comparative assessment the respondent No. 5 has been picked up to be settled with the canteen. Having been asked to vacate the canteen by letter dated 29. 9. 2005, he submitted a representation amongst others before the Principal, GMCH Guwahati. The same having failed to evoke any positive response, he turned to this Court for redress.