RINCHIN DONDUP ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pritam Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Duge Soki, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State Respondents No. 1 to 4, and Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 5.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has primarily challenged the legality and validity 'of the impugned order, dated 02.03.2017, issued by the Executive Engineer, Public works Division, Public Works Department, Bomdila, in pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 01.02.2017, whereby the work, in question, was awarded to the private Respondent No. 5, in a most arbitrary and illegal manner despite the petitioner being the lowest bidder, in complete violation of the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2015') .

(3.) The Petitioner, herein, is a Class-II registered firm, having its address viz. C/o. Dawa Hotel, Near Petrol Pump Bomdila, West Kmeng District, P.O/P.S Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh. The impugned NIT, herein, is NIT No.BDL/T&A- 43/2016-17,'49, dated 01.02.2017, regarding construction of CC Pavement at Nafra Township(2.660 km) amounting to Rs. 4,85,5641.00 and the bids were to be submitted online. The Petitioner participated in the tender process and he was declared the lowest bidder. However, on the date of opening i.e. 17.02.2017, no final decision was taken nor any minutes of meeting furnished to the bidders as to who had won the tender but by the impugned order'/Communication, dated 02.03.2017, the Petitioner came to know that the private respondent No. 5 viz. M/s. Hardware Store was awarded the tender. As per the Act of 2015, the respondent authorities have stipulated that NIT was limited to class-II Contractors domiciled within the jurisdiction of 7-Bomdila (ST) Assembly Constituency. Hence, the private Respondents No. 5 and 6, being class-I/A and class-S Contractors, respectively, cannot participate in the tender process. That apart, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has issued Notification, dated 21.11.2014, whereby class-II (Contractor is eligible to bid for bid value upto Rs. 5.00 crores and the petitioner, being Class-II contractor, is eligible to bid in this tender. Eventually, when he was the lowest bidder therefore, he had a legitimate expectation of being chosen. In such a situation, the respondent authorities are duty bound to furnish the reason(s) for not awarding him the tender work and by not doing so, the respondent authorities have acted in a malafide and arbitrary manner and have violated article 14 of the Conttitution of India. The amount quoted by the Petitioner (M/s. R.D. Enterprise), MM. Hardware House and M/s. L.D. and Sons, are Rs. 4,57,31,036 (Lowest), Rs. 4,59,50,702(L-2) and Rs. 5,10,69,287 (L-3), respectively. As stated above, it is the contention of the petitioner that no minutes of the tender opening were furnished to the Petitioner and no final decision as 70 who will be awarded the tender was intimated to the Petitioner. Situated thus, the petitioner filed representations dated 21.02.2017 and dated 27.02.2017 before the concerned Executive Engineer, alleging certain allegations/ anomalies in the bid documents of the private Respondents and urged the respondent authorities to award him the tender as he was the lowest bid tenderer.