SIMANTA JYOTI BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of all these three writ petitions, for, all these writ petitions are inextricably linked with each other and the decision, if rendered in any of these three writ petitions, would have a bearing on the out come of the remaining writ petitions.

(2.) THE respondent No. 4, namely, Golaghat Development Authority (in short, 'g. D. A') published, on 31. 10. 2006, Notice Inviting Tender (N. I. T.) for construction of two Storm Water Drains in two different localities of Golaghat town. The project in respect of one such drains is called GMSD-I, the approximate value whereof is Rs. 1. 29 Crores, and the other project of the drain is called GMSD-II, the approximate value whereof is Rs. 81 lakhs. While offering their bids, the bidders were required to quote their rates on percentage basis up to digits of two decimals only. The tender documents were opened on 21. 11. 2006. The summary sheets for evaluation of tender documents were prepared and signed by the contractors/their authorized representatives. The tender documents and bids offered were examined by the Tender Evaluation Committee. The respondent No. 5, namely, Chairman, G. D. A. , forwarded, vide his letter, dated 30. 11. 2006, to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Assam, the findings recorded by the Tender Evaluation Committee and all other relevant documents. By his letter, dated 19. 12. 2006, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Urban Development Department, conveyed to respondent No. 5 the decision of the Government to allot the work as mentioned in the said letter. While WP (C) No. 433/2007 challenges the said allotment order made, in respect of the project, which is known as GMSD-II, in favour of the private respondent (i. e. , respondent No. 6 in WP (C) No. 433/2007), WP (C) No. 434/2007 challenges the allotment of work of the project, namely, GMSD-I in favour of the private respondent (i. e. , respondent No. 6 in WP (C) No. 434/2007), this private respondent having been made respondent No. 4 in WP (C) No. 555/2007, wherein also the allotment order, dated 19. 12. 2006, aforesaid stands challenged. In short, thus, and as already indicated hereinabefore, the allotment of the work of the project, namely, GMSD-II, made in favour of respondent No. 6 stands impugned in WP (C) No. 433/2007 and the allotment of the work of the project, namely, GMSD-I made in favour of the private respondent stands challenged in the remaining two writ petitions, namely, WP (C) No. 434/2007 and WP (C) No. 555/2007, the allottee having been made, in these two Writ Petitions, respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 4 respectively. What is also worth pointing out is that while the offer of the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 433/2007, in respect of GMSD-II, was 10% below the schedule of the estimated rate, the offer of the private respondent (i. e. , respondent No. 6 in WP (C) No. 433/2007) was at par the estimated rate. Similarly, while the rate offered by the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 434/2007, in respect of GMSD-I, was 10% below the schedule of the estimated rate and that of the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 555/2007 was 6% below the schedule of the estimated rate, the offer, made by the private respondent (i. e. respondent No. 6 in WP (C) No. 434/2007 and respondent No. 4 in WP (C) No. 555/2007), was at par the estimated rate.

(3.) WHILE issuing Notice of Motion, on 31. 01. 07, the High Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo as on the date of the passing of the said order, i. e. 31. 01. 2007. The parties to these three writ petitions, thereafter, completed their pleadings expeditiously and, on the request made on their behalf, all these three writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.