AKSHAY TEL COMMUNICATION Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Borpatra-gohain, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Senior Govt. Advocate and Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned Senior Counsel assisted Mr. S. Sutradhar, Advocate.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioners is that the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam ('SLPRB' for short), the respondent No.2 herein had invited online "Request for Proposal" ('RFP' for short) for selection of Professional Agency for implementation of Transparent Recruitment Policy ('TRP' for short) in connection with Recruitment of various posts in the Assam Police and other Department that may be entrusted by the Govt. to it for the financial year 2018-19. The RFP was a tender of 2 (two) bid system with 3 (three) stages, being (a) Pre-Qualification Bid, (b) Technical Bid, and (c) Commercial Bid. While the petitioner had submitted its bid in collaboration with Aptech Ltd., the respondent No.4, namely, M/s. Amain Tech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ('ATCPL' in short) had submitted its bid in collaboration with the respondent No.5, i.e. Bloom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.5). It is projected that the respondent No.5 did not meet the pre-qualification criteria and automatically the respondent No.4 remained not qualified. But it is alleged that the respondent No.4, in collusion and connivance of the respondent No.5 resorted to fraudulent practice and the bid submitted by respondent No.4 contained forged and fraudulent certificates of credentials, which called for their disqualification. However, despite the representation submitted by the petitioners, the contract was awarded to the respondent No.4 and accordingly, an agreement was executed between the respondent Nos.2 and 4. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for (i) setting aside decision of the State to select the respondent No.4 as professional agency on the basis of fraudulent and forged certificates of credential, (ii) to set aside and quash the Contract Agreement bearing No. SLPRB/Rec/TRP/PA Vol-II/63 dated 20.09.2018 between the respondents No.2 and 4, (iii) to issue mandamus to the respondents No.2 and 4 (sic.) to declare the respondents No. 4 (sic.) and 5 as disqualified bidder for having submitted fraudulent and forged certificates of credential (work experience certificate) obtained fraudulently by the respondent No.5, (iv) for direction to the respondents No. 2 and 4 (sic.) to rescind/ cancel and/or to forbear from giving effect to the respondent No.4; (v) for a direction to the State Respondents No.2 and 4 to re-evaluate the process from the stage of evaluation of Technical Bids of the qualified bidders and/or for any other relief(s).

(3.) The following pleadings by the respective parties are on record - (i) writ petition by the petitioners, (ii) affidavit- in opposition filed on 20.11.2018 by the respondent No.1, (ii) affidavit- in- opposition filed on 2.11.2018 by the respondent No.3, (iii) affidavitin- reply filed on 15.11.2018 by the petitioner against the Affidavit- in- opposition filed by respondent No.3, (iv) affidavit- in- reply filed on 19.11.2018 by the respondent No.3 against the Affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioner, (v) affidavit- in- opposition jointly filed by the respondents No.4 and 5 on 14.11.2018, (vi) affidavit- in- reply filed on 22.11.2018 by the petitioner against the Affidavit- in- opposition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, (vii) affidavit filed on 23.11.2018 by the respondent No.4, (viii) additional affidavit filed on 03.12.2018 by the respondents No.4 and 5. As the stand of all the respondents is that of denial of all the allegations made against them, the contents of the said pleadings are not reiterated herein.