Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Ajoy Kumar Basumatary, was one of ten bidders who responded to a tender notice dated 05.12.2022 issued by the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for grant of a mining contract to settle the Rowta Bagan Sand and Stone Mahal in Udalguri district, Assam. Several bidders, including the petitioner, offered identical or near-identical bid values (around Rs. 30,38,750, roughly 25% above the government value of Rs. 24,31,000). The Bid Evaluation Committee's Comparative Statement ultimately favoured respondent no.5, Nasi Ram Daimari, as the successful bidder. The petitioner challenged a communication dated 16.03.2023 conveying BTC's approval of this Comparative Statement, contending that the selection process was flawed. GST appears in the tender documentation only as one of several standard eligibility documents (along with PAN, IT and caste certificates) that each bidder had to furnish — it is not a matter involving any GST law question.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Bid Evaluation Committee/BTC's decision-making process in approving respondent no.5 as the successful bidder was vitiated by taking into account an irrelevant and extraneous consideration.
  2. Whether the other similarly-placed bidders, including the petitioner, were treated in a discriminatory manner.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The decision-making process leading to approval of respondent no.5's bid took into account a statement of annual financial turnover that was never called for under the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice or the Tender Form.
  • The petitioner and other equally responsive bidders were treated in a discriminatory manner by being excluded solely because they had not furnished this extraneous document.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Not separately recorded in detail; the BTC authorities defended the Comparative Statement and the approval granted to respondent no.5 as the successful bidder.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the annual-turnover statement was irrelevant since it was never required by the Tender Notice or Tender Form, and that the Tendering Authority/Bid Evaluation Committee ought to have confined itself to the criteria actually set out in the tender documents.
  • It found the decision-making process fraught with infirmities, since the other five responsive bidders (including the petitioner) were excluded from consideration solely for lacking this irrelevant document.
  • The approval granted to respondent no.5's bid was set aside and quashed.
  • The matter was remanded to the BTC authorities to prepare a fresh Comparative Statement, confining themselves to the relevant tender criteria, and complete the exercise within one month.
  • The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

This is a public-tender/administrative-law case about arbitrary State action, not a GST ruling — GST registration was simply one of the routine compliance documents every bidder had to submit. The real lesson is procedural: a tendering authority cannot reject bidders for failing to submit a document that was never actually asked for in the tender notice.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 (equality before law, prohibiting arbitrary State action) and Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed.
  • Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 — the regulatory framework under which the mining contract for the sand and stone mahal was to be settled.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided substantially in favour of the petitioner — the impugned tender approval was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh evaluation confined to the actual tender criteria.

Case Details

  • Court: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
  • Case Number: WP(C) No. 2160/2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury
  • Date of Judgment: 10.10.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.