FOODEXX A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. I have also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, appearing for the respondent No.5.

(2.) The order dated 23.05.2019 issued by the respondent No.4 directing that the contract in question for operation of a restaurant complex within the Assam State Zoo at Guwahati for a period of five years to be awarded in favour of respondent No.5, has been put under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as appearing on the face of the records, are that the respondent No.2 i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Assam State Zoo Division, Guwahati had floated an NIT dated 11.02.2019 inviting bids for operation of a restaurant within the Assam State Zoo for a period of five years. The NIT contained a clause in the form of Clause 26 whereunder the intending bidders were required to have at least two years experience in operating a "fine dining" restaurant. The writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 had both submitted their bids in response to the NIT dated 11.02.2019. Upon evaluation of the bids, it transpired that the petitioner had offered Rs.62,200/- as the monthly rent whereas the respondent No.5 had offered Rs.63,000/-. However, by the letter dated 05.04.2019, the tendering authority had recommended that the work order to operate the restaurant be issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The said recommendation made in favour of the petitioner for a lower amount was apparently on account of the fact that although the respondent No.5 had quoted a higher rate of Rs.63,000/- per month, yet, his bid was found to be non-responsive to Clause 26 of the NIT. The matter was then placed before the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Publicity), Office of the PCCF, WL and CWLW, Assam, for further scrutiny, who had issued the impugned order dated 23.05.2019 overruling the recommendation made by the respondent No.2, with a direction to the concerned authority to execute the agreement with the respondent No.5 in view of the higher revenue offer by him. It is the order dated 23.05.2019 that has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.