LAWS(GAU)-1997-12-8

DEBENDRA NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On December 10, 1997
DEBENDRANATH BORA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order of the Government dated 17.5.1997 approving the tender to the respondent No. 10 and holding for production of documentary films on AIDS. 2.14 (fourteen) tenders were submitted and out of that three were rejected and finally 11 tenders were taken up for consideration. The scrutiny committee on assessment also found the petitioner suitable according to the petitioner. The entire matter was placed before Minister, Health and considering the experience of respondent No. 10 he recommended the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. The matter was assailed before this Court by way of Civil Rule No. 1361/96. By judgment and order dated 16.7.96 disposed of the Civil Rule with the following observations :

(2.) The legality and vajidity of the order is assailed in this proceeding. Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was one of the bidder and offered tender of Rs.3,59,216/- which was lower than the respondent No. 10. Mr. Das also submitted that since he was an eligible tenderer and fulfilled all the requirements the Government ought to have accqpted lowest tender and allot the work to him. Mr. Das the learned counsel particularly emphasised on the note made by the concerned officer before the Principal Secretary in the file being No. HLA. 201/96/50. Mr. Das submitted that petitioner was the lowest tenderer therefore he was entitled for the consideration.

(3.) All (he respondents submitted its affidavit. The State Government submitted its detailed affidavit denying and disputing the allegations. The State Government specifically submitted that all the tenders were lawfully considered and after assessing the respective merits the respondent No. 10 was selected. The State Government on the other hand submitted that the scrutiny committee and selection committee after examining the case of the petitioner did not recommend the case of the petitioner though forwarded for consideration.