Gauhati High Court
M/S Badri Rai And Company vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 August, 2024
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010160392024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4034/2024
M/S BADRI RAI AND COMPANY
STATION ROAD, P.O. DULIAJAN-786602, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-05.
2:THE DEPARTMENT OF PWD
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY CHEF ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD BUILDING ASSAM CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03.
3:THE SPL. CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PWD
PWD BUILDING (HEALTH AND EDUCATION)
ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3.
4:TRIBENI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
TRIBENI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR GS ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781001 ASSA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Choudhury
Mr. S.P. Sharma
For the respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. B. Gogoi
Page No.# 2/18
For the respondent no.4 : None appears.
Date of hearing : 29.08.2024
Date of order : 29.08.2024
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the PWD. No one represents the respondent No.4, inasmuch as, no notice has been issued to the respondent No.4 till date.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of Clause 2 of the similar work experience required of a bidder for participating in the NIT dated 23.02.2024, the petitioner has fulfilled the work experience required therein. The further case of the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 6(a) of the NIT, a bid may be subjected to disqualification, if the bidder had concealed any information/document which would result in the bidder's disqualification or if any statement/information/ document furnished by the bidder or issued by a Bank/ Agency/Third party is subsequently found to be false or fraudulent or repudiated by the said Bank/Agency/Third party. In case of disqualification under Rule 6(a), the bidder is likely to face action under ITT Clause 17(d) of the Instructions to Bidders and the bidder is liable to face the penalty of being banned from having business dealings with the Assam PWD. The disqualification could be on the basis of the records of any contract awarded to the bidder, having been determined during the past three years prior to the deadline for settlement of bids, i.e., last stipulated date for submission of bids.
Page No.# 3/18
3. Further, in terms of Clause 9(b)(v) of the NIT and the ITT, in case any information/document which could result in the bidder's disqualification is concealed by the bidder or any statement/information/document furnished by the bidder or issued by a Bank/Agency/Third Party and submitted by the bidder, is subsequently found to be false or fraudulent or repudiated by the said Bank/Agency/Third Party, the earnest money is liable to be forfeited automatically, without any notice to the bidder.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that in the present case, the petitioner has been given back his earnest money on 07.08.2024, thereby implying that no information or document had been concealed by the bidder, which was subsequently found to be false or fraudulent. However, the Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 01.08.2024 has disqualified the petitioner's technical bid, on the ground that discrepancies were found in the petitioner's document submitted in support of work experience criteria. Accordingly, the petitioner's technical bid had been disqualified in terms of ITT Clause 6(a). The petitioner's counsel submits that there is a disconnect between the Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 01.08.2024 and the return of the earnest money of the petitioner and as such, the disqualification of the petitioner's Technical Bid should be set aside. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel submits that the petitioner's financial bid is 14 crores lower than the private respondents and as such, if the petitioner is awarded the contract, the State will be saving 14 crores.
5. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the PWD has submitted instructions and documents pertaining to the verification made by the Bid Evaluation Committee, Page No.# 4/18 in respect of the verification process conducted on all the bidders documents, including the petitioner's documents. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that in terms of the verification process conducted by the respondents on the basis of the petitioner's tender documents, some additional documents were submitted by the Government of Meghalaya with regard to the construction of the new Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, wherein the contract had been awarded to the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nimran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Contractor') for the estimated value of Rs.127,75,98,465/-. He submits that as per the documents furnished by the PWD, Government of Meghalaya to the Assam PWD, the U.P. Contractor had given information to the Meghalaya PWD that it intended to engage the petitioner as a sub-contractor for the contract work and that in terms of Clause 39.1 of the essential conditions of contract, the engagement of the petitioner would be limited to 40% of the contract value, i.e., upto Rs.51.08 Crores only. The Meghalaya PWD, vide letter dated 09.07.2020 replied to the U.P. Contractor's letter dated 10.07.2019, stating that the proposal for subletting the contract to the petitioner upto 40% of the contract value, i.e., Rs.51.08 crores, in terms of Clause 39.1 of the ECC had been accepted, subject to certain conditions. He submits that despite the above two letters, the U.P. Contractor has written a letter dated 19.08.2019 to the petitioner issuing a final work order amounting to Rs.85,03,23,212/-. Subsequent to the above, the U.P. Contractor has issued a certificate dated 24.11.2023, stating that the petitioner had executed the work order of construction of the new Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building as follows:-
"1) Total value of work awarded: Rs.85,03,23,212.00/-
2) Total value of work completed: Rs.170,67,05,058.00/-"
Page No.# 5/18
6. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel submits that in terms of the enclosed information provided in relation to letter No. PW/CE/BD/107/2023/15 dated 23.07.2024 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Meghalaya, Shillong to the Special Chief Engineer, PWD Building (Health and Education), Assam, the role of the petitioner in the work contract, as per the official records of the PWD(Buildings), Meghalaya was as a sub contractor. Further, the value of the actual work completed was Rs.242,14,00,000/-, which had been revised from Rs.127,75,98,465/-.
7. Mr. B. Gogoi further submits that the above documents that have been received from the Meghalaya PWD casts a doubt as to the authenticity of the document submitted by the petitioner, with regard to the value of the contract work done by the petitioner in respect of the construction of the new Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building.
8. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the financial bids of the tenderers have not been opened till date.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. Clause 6(a) of the qualifying criteria for works contracts and Clause 9(b)(v) of the Instructions to Tenderers (ITT) is reproduced herein below, as follows :
"6. Even though the bidders may meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to disqualification if they have
a) Concealed any information/document which may result in the Page No.# 6/18 Bidder's disqualification or if any statement/information/document furnished by the Bidder or issued by a Bank/Agency/Third party is subsequently found to be false or fraudulent or repudiated by the said Bank/Agency/Third Party. In such a case, besides Bidder's liability to action under ITT Clause 17(d) of Instructions to Tenderers, the Bidder is liable to face the penalty of banning of business dealings with him by Assam PWD. Records of any contract awarded to them, having been determined during the past three years prior to the dead line for submission of bids i.e. last stipulated date for submission of bids.".
9 The Earnest Money is liable to be forfeited automatically without any notice.
(b)v. in case any information/document which may result in the Bidder's disqualification is concealed by the Bidder any statement/information/document furnished by the Bidder or issued by a Bank/Agency/Third Party and submitted by the Bidder, is subsequently found to be false or fraudulent or repudiated by the said Bank/Agency/Third Party."
11. As can be seen from the above quoted provisions of the NIT, any information given by a bidder which is subsequently found to be false or fraudulent or repudiated, can result in the disqualification of the Bid of a tenderer and forfeiture of Earnest Money.
12. The relevant extract of the Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 01.08.2024, wherein the petitioner's Technical Bid has been disqualified is reproduced herein below, as follows:
".........
Committee gone through the documents thoroughly and found discrepancies in between the submitted credentials documents for support Page No.# 7/18 of Work Experience criteria as per ITT Clause No. 2 by M/S Badri Rai & Company Station Road P.O. Duliajan-786602 Dist-Dibrugarh Assam along with their bid with the information received from Meghalaya PWD. After threadbare discussion the Bid Evaluation Committee found that the bidder namely M/S Badri Rai & Company Station Road P.O. Duliajan- 786602 Dist-Dibrugarh Assam has misrepresented their document Therefore committee decided to Technically disqualify the bidder as per ITT Clause No. 6(a).
.........."
13. Clause 2 of the qualifying criteria for works contracts provides that the Work Experience shall consist of not only having similar Work Experience but also having Physical Experience Criteria. The extract of Clause 2 of the qualifying criteria for works contracts is reproduced herein below, as follows:
"2. WORK EXPERIENCE
a) Similar Works Experience The Bidder should have completed in his own name or proportionate share as a member of a Joint Venture, i. at least one (80% of Estimated cost) similar work of minimum value of Rs. 150.761 Crore during the last 7 (Seven) years prior to the last stipulated date for submission of the Bid.
OR ii. at least two (60% of Estimated cost) similar works each of minimum value of Rs. 113.07 Crore during the last 7 (Seven) years prior to the last stipulated date for submission of the Bid.
OR iii. at least three (40% of Estimated cost) similar works each of minimum value of Rs. 75.380 Crore during the last 7 (Seven) years prior to the last stipulated date for submission of the Bid. Works completed prior to the cut-off date shall not be considered. Similar Works Page No.# 8/18 Similar Works shall mean the work of Construction of Institutional, residential building(s)/non-residential building(s) with RCC framed structure having minimum G+4 with allied works viz. internal water supply & sanitary installations, internal/external electrical installations, Fire Fighting etc. carried out in India under a single contract (including additional work carried out under the contract).
Mumty, machine room and basement shall not to be considered in storey. Own works/ work under the same management / own certification of the bidder shall not be considered.
In case the Bidder (Indian Company) wishes to rely on a work completed abroad, the value of such completed work in foreign convertible currency shall be converted into Indian Rupees. The conversion rate shall be decided by the Tender Inviting Authority based on the rates of currency on the date of completion of work (the bidder to also submit the currency conversion rate as on completion date of the Credential Certificate relied upon by the bidder for the purpose of work experience). Further, such a bidder (Indian Company) should have also completed at least one Similar work of value minimum 60% of estimated cost of work i.c. Rs.113.07 Cr., in India in the last seven years prior to the last stipulated date for submission of the Bids and also satisfy the similar work experience criteria as stated in the Annuxure-1 Para.
b) Physical Experience Criteria i. The Bidder should have completed in his own name at least one Construction of Basement works in last 7 years.
ii The Bidder in his own name should have completed at least one Construction work with 700 nos. of piles or more with 500 mm dia or more and depth of 16 meters or more in sinble project in last 7 years."
14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
15. The petitioner's case is that he has got the Work Experience required in terms of Clause 2(a) in respect of the work done by the petitioner by being a part of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building construction work and Page No.# 9/18 also building the IIT, Guwahati. However, the documents submitted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the State respondents shows that the initial value of the contract work was Rs.127,75,98,465/- and the actual completed work value of the petitioner in respect of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building was Rs. 170,67,05,058/-, which is 70.48% of Rs.242,14,00,000/-, i.e. the revised estimate. Thus, the certificate dated 24.11.2023 issued by the U.P. Contractor shows that the petitioner had done the work value of more than 40% of the contract value, for which permission had not been asked for by the UP Contractor or given approval by the Meghalaya PWD.
16. In the case of AGMATEL India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom & Others, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 362, the Supreme Court has referred to the other decisions of the Supreme Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners &Transport Contractors, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 808, wherein it held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court held that:
"15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project Page No.# 10/18 may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
17. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha (2020) SCC 759, the Supreme Court held that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes and that the High Court should not interfere when there are differences in contractual interpretation.
18. Further, in the judgment in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case."
19. Thus, without going into the assessment of the documents that have been supplied to this Court, it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a Page No.# 11/18 particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ court.
20. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the Supreme Court held that:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and Page No.# 12/18 irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
21. In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272 , the Supreme Court held as follows: (SCC p. 288, para 26) "26. .......
It is common knowledge in the competitive commercial field that technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are scrutinised by the technical experts and sometimes third-party assistance from those unconnected with the owner's organisation is taken. This ensures objectivity. Bidder's expertise and technical capability and capacity must be assessed by the experts. In the matters of financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical in nature. The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which we have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters applied are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of perfection in execution and adherence to the time schedule. But, that does not mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review. Exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision-making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should Page No.# 13/18 follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints."
22. The basic issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner had submitted false information to the State respondents in his bid documents. The minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 14.06.2024 resolved that correspondences were to be made with the IIT, Guwahati and PWD(B), Meghalaya, for verification of the documents of the petitioner with the Work Experience as provided in reference to Clause 2(a) and Clause 2(b) of the ITT, in order to verify the correctness of the submitted documents.
23. The correspondences made by the State respondents with the IIT, Guwahati found that the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to the construction work done for the IIT, Guwahati was without any fault and in fact, the documents on record go to show that the petitioner was qualified in terms of the similar work experience required as per Clause 2(a)(i) of the NIT. The petitioner's documents relating to sub-contract work done for the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, if correct, appears to show that the petitioner qualifies under the Physical Experience Criteria Clause, as provided under Clause 2(b). However, the correctness/ genuineness of the petitioner's documents with regard to the value of construction of New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building under the Government of Meghalaya, PWD, done by the petitioner, arose in view of the fact the UP Contractor, who was the Principal Contractor and who had been allotted the contract work for Page No.# 14/18 constructing the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, had asked for approval of the Meghalaya PWD, to sub-contract the work to the petitioner up to 40% of the estimated amount. The Meghalaya PWD approved the request of the UP Contractor for sub-contracting the contract work, for construction of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, to the extent of 40% of the estimated amount of Rs. 127,75,98,465/-, prior to the estimate amount being revised to Rs.242,14,00,000/-.
24. To cut a long story short, the petitioner submitted the work order dated 19.08.2019 issued by the UP Contractor to the petitioner, which is to the effect that the petitioner's bid for sub-contracting the construction of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, for an amount of Rs.85,03,23,212/-, was accepted by the UP Contractor. The petitioner had also submitted the certificate dated 01.03.2024 issued by the UP Contractor, which stated that the petitioner had successfully executed the sub-contract work for construction of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building for the total completed work value of Rs.170,67,05,058/-. It may be reiterated here that the initial estimated cost of the contract work was Rs.127,75,98,465/- and the revised estimated value was Rs.242,14,00,000/-. The petitioner was initially awarded the work value of Rs. 85,03,23,212/- by the UP Contractor, which was beyond 40% of the initial contract estimate of Rs.127,75,98,465/- It is clear from the work value done by the petitioner amounting to Rs.170,67,05,058/-, for construction of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, that the sub-contract work given to the petitioner by the UP Contractor was beyond the 40% limit that had been set out by the UP Contractor, with the approval of the Meghalaya PWD. The issue whether the petitioner could have been given sub-contract work beyond 40%, as agreed to by the UP Contractor and the Meghalaya PWD is not a Page No.# 15/18 question that is to be decided, inasmuch as, Clause 6(a) of the qualifying criteria of works contracts, as provided in the instructions to tenderers (ITT), pertains to false and fraudulent documents being submitted by the tenderers. The petitioner herein has submitted documents, which is to the effect that he has done work beyond 40% of the contract amount. The genuineness of the said claim made by the petitioner should be the issue that is to be decided by the respondents. If the petitioner is found to have done work, as submitted in his tender documents, while constructing the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, the petitioner cannot be said to have violated Clause 6(a) of the qualifying criteria for works contracts of the ITT, just because the petitioner might have been given sub-contract work beyond the approved limit of 40%. The issue that has to be decided and examined is as to whether the petitioner had done the contract work, as claimed by him in terms of Clause 6(a) of the above Clause and not whether he has done sub-contract work beyond what had been agreed to by the UP Contractor and the Meghalaya PWD.
25. The disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid, vide the meeting minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 01.08.2024, is to the effect that the petitioner's technical bid has been disqualified in terms of Clause 6(a) of the ITT, as the petitioner has made a misrepresentation in his documents, as there were discrepancies in the work experience criteria submitted by the petitioner, in respect of the contract work of the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, as per the information received from Meghalaya PWD.
26. As stated earlier, the petitioner's work experience, as can be seen from the certificate dated 20.11.2023 and the physical experience criteria, as provided in the certificate dated 01.03.2024 issued by the UP Contractor, appears to fulfil Page No.# 16/18 the conditions required under Clause 2(a)(i), 2(b)(i) and 2(b)(ii) of the work experience clause provided in the qualifying criteria for the works contracts under Annexure-1 of the NIT and ITT.
27. As stated earlier, the only issue pertains to whether the petitioner had submitted false documents, i.e. whether the petitioner had actually done the work, as reflected in the above certificates dated 20.11.2023 and 01.03.2024. The petitioner's document having stated that the petitioner had done the work value of Rs. 170,67,05,058/-, out of the total revised estimate of the contract work amounting to Rs.242,14,00,000/-, the respondents would have to take a decision, as to whether the petitioner had done the work value as per the information provided by the petitioner. It is only when the State respondents come to a finding that the petitioner has not done the work value of Rs. 170,67,05,058/-, while constructing the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building, that the petitioner can be said to have given false/fraudulent information in his bid documents, which would attract Clause 6(a) of the ITT. The issue as to whether the petitioner should have done only 40% of the contract estimate or as to whether the same was illegal/legal are not issues to be decided, while considering the petitioner's certificates under Clause 6(a) of the ITT, especially when there is nothing to show that the limit of sub- contracting the work up to 40% of the estimate, does not show the involvement of the petitioner.
28. As can be seen from the various decisions of the Supreme Court, the authority that authors the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate it's requirement and that the interpretation given should not be interfered with, when there are differences in contractual interpretation.
Page No.# 17/18 However, in the present case, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in the proper perspective, especially when the matter pertains to public largesse and there is a difference of approximately 14 Crores in the bids of the parties. The applicability of Clause 6(a) of the ITT has not been looked at, in the manner provided for in the NIT. Further, in the view of this Court, this is not a case where two interpretations are capable of being made while considering the petitioner's case, in terms of Clause 6(a) of the ITT.
29. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid is arbitrary and not sustainable, as the reason for disqualification does not come within the ambit of Clause 6(a) of the ITT. However, in view of the fact that the present case pertains to the terms and conditions of a tender and as the State respondents have not decided the issue in the correct perspective, i.e. the decision making process being flawed, this Court is of the view that the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid should be reconsidered by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent No. 3 on or before 03.09.2024, regarding it's claim that it has done sub-contract work in constructing the New Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Building to the tune of Rs.170,67,05,058/-. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee shall thereafter reconsider the case of the petitioner, keeping in view the observations made by this Court and communicate its decision to the petitioner.
30. Till a decision is taken by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, status- quo, as on date, shall be maintained in respect of the NIT in question.
Page No.# 18/18
31. Consequently, the minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee meeting dated 01.08.2024, disqualifying the petitioner's technical bid, is hereby set aside.
32. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant