Gauhati High Court
M/S Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltd vs M/S N. T. Agency And 5 Ors on 26 March, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manash Ranjan Pathak
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010062072021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/109/2021
M/S SHIVAM TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
HEAD OFFICE AT 59 ZOO NAGENGI ROAD, GEETA NAGAR, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM AND CORRESPONDING ADDRESS- BAM HOUSE, VIKEK VIHAR VIP
COLONY NEAR THESEVADA BUDDHIST TEMPLE, P.O. AND P.S. ITANAGAR.
VERSUS
M/S N. T. AGENCY AND 5 ORS.
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT B-SECTOR, NAHARLAGUN, P.O. AND P.S.
NAHARLAGUN, PAPUM PARE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
SHRI NABAM TADAP, S/O- SRI NABAM LILUNG, RESIDENT OF PAGA
TARA, (JULLANG VILLAGE), P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN, PAPUM PARE
DISTRICT, A.P.
2:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PWD
GOVT. OF AP
ITANAGAR.
3:THE COMMISSIONER PWD GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ITANAGAR.
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD CENTRAL ZONE-B
PASIGHAT GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BASAR DIVISION
GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
6:ER. MARKAR BAM CHIEF ENGINEER PWD CENTRAL ZONE-B
PASIGHAT GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOWDHURY SR ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, AP
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 26.03.2021 (Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ) Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, Advocate. Also heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh appearing for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, assisted by Mr. A. Chandran, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. The writ appellant before this Court is a contractor who made a bid in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for construction of a road. Admittedly, four contractors had qualified for the Technical Bid and then a Financial Bid were opened. The admitted case is that the appellant was L3 where as respondent no.1 i.e. M/S N.T. Agency was the L1. Aggrieved that contract work being given to L3 instead of L1, the respondent no.1/petitioner (M/s. N.T. Agency) approached with the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.76/2021 before the learned Single Judge, Itanagar Bench, Guwahati wherein on 15.03.2021 an interim order was passed staying the work order i.e. Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 16.02.2021 issued in favour of the writ appellant. Aggrieved, he (writ appellant) has approached this Court.
3. According to the writ appellant the contract in question was not being given to L1 as the bid quoted by him were found to be nineteen percent below the estimated cost and the same was found to be seriously unbalanced. Therefore, Page No.# 3/3 exercising its power under clause 29.6 of the "Invitation for Bid" (Annexure-4 series) which is "Instructions to Bidders" the bid of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has been declared as non-responsive and his bid was rejected.
4. The case of the petitioner/respondent no.1 is that he had assigned logical reasons for the bid amount he had offered and in case the authority concerned was not satisfied with the amount, they could have taken an additional performance security which is provided under clause 29.5 of the "Invitation for Bid". This argument of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner found favour by the learned Single Judge who passed the interim order staying Letter of Acceptance dated 16.02.2021. On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Mr. I. Choudhury submits that once the experts had rejected the bid of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner taking note of the fact that the bid amount quoted by him was too low to execute the work in question, interference was not called for in such matters.
5. At this stage, we are of the opinion that the road which is to be constructed at Arunachal Pradesh may have certain urgency and any interference of this Court may delay the execution of the work itself. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the interim order of the learned Single Judge passed on 15.03.2021 and accordingly remand the matter to the learned Single Judge with a request that the writ petition be disposed of within a period of one month by conducting day-to-day hearing, if possible.
With the above observation and decision, the writ appeal is disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant