Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 829 (GAU)

Udayan Enterprise v. State of Assam

2017-06-21

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sk Medhi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learnde standing counsel, Health Department. 2. The petitioner is an experienced contractor providing housekeeping services in hospitals and he had successfully performed 3(three) years of being engaged for the purpose of housekeeping of the Tezpur Medical College and Hospital (for short, TMC&H). 3. Pursuant to the NIT dated 29.11.2016, issued by the respondent authorities inviting tendered bids for the housekeeping work in the TMC&H for a period of 12 months w.e.f., 01.06.2017, the petitioner had duly participated in the same. 4. In the aforesaid tender process, 9 participants had participated, out of which, 6 of the bidders were found to have been technically valid. In the minutes of the Technical Evaluation Committee meeting held on 12.05.2017, it was evaluated that the writ petitioner was the first lowest bidder, while the respondent No.7 was the 3rd lowest bidder. But the evaluation committee had taken a decision to offer the contract to the respondent No.7 and the reasons for the same is stated that the cost for housekeeping services of respondent No.7 represents the best value for money to TMC&H. From a plain reading of the said reason, it cannot be ascertained as to how the 3rd lowest bidder gives the best money value to the TMC&H. 5. Be that as it may, Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, tries to explain by referring to the Table contained in the said minutes by stating that the writ petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs. 2,36,100/- for manual cleaning whereas the respondent No.7 had quoted Rs. 4,34,766/-. Accordingly, the learned Standing counsel tries to make a submission that the services to be rendered by the petitioner may be of inferior quality as the rate quoted by the petitioner is lower. 6. The learned Standing counsel Health Department also refers to the column, service-charges, which indicate the likely profit that may be made by the respective tenderers. By referring to the said column, the learned Standing counsel says that the bid of the petitioner indicates that he would earn profit of Rs. 64,396/- whereas the respondent No.7 would earn a profit of Rs. By referring to the said column, the learned Standing counsel says that the bid of the petitioner indicates that he would earn profit of Rs. 64,396/- whereas the respondent No.7 would earn a profit of Rs. 40,377/- and, therefore, the Evaluation Committee was of the view that as the respondent No.7 would earn a lower amount of profit, his bid is more competitive than the petitioner. 7. The subsequent ground stated by the learned Standing counsel is not found to be acceptable by this Court. If the tenderer by providing the required service and by maintaining its standard can earn higher profit the same cannot be a reason for rejecting the said tender. 8. But as regards the other ground taken by the learned Standing counsel that the writ petitioner had quoted a lower rate for the manual cleaning than the respondent No.7 and as such, the quality of services required for manual cleaning may not be of the required standard, this Court is of the view that in order to arrive at such a satisfaction, it is incumbent upon the Evaluation Committee to give a hearing to the writ petitioner by allowing him to substantiate his case, that merely by quoting a higher rate, it cannot be construed that the standard of services provided by that tenderer would be of higher quality value. 9. In such view of the matter and as agreed to by the parties, interest of justice would be met, if the matter is remanded back to the Evaluation Committee to give the petitioner a hearing and allow him to substantiate that even as per the rate offered by him for manual cleaning the services rendered would be of the required standard. As the procedure of giving a hearing to the petitioner may ultimately result in the cancellation of the work order issued in favour of the respondent No.7, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent No.7 be also given similar hearing and be allowed to substantiate his views in the matter. 10. Upon giving the respective parties a hearing as afore-stated, the Evaluation Committee shall pass a speaking order by giving reasons for its decision. 11. If the decision is taken in favour of the writ petitioner, the same shall supersede the earlier decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee dated 12.054.2017 as well as the work order issued in favour of respondent No.7 dated 15.05.2017. 11. If the decision is taken in favour of the writ petitioner, the same shall supersede the earlier decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee dated 12.054.2017 as well as the work order issued in favour of respondent No.7 dated 15.05.2017. 12. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Evaluation Committee within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. It is provided that till the final decision as aforesaid is taken, the respondent No.7 shall continue to provide the services of housekeeping to the TMC&H. 14. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.