Facts of the Case

This is a public-tender/market-settlement dispute; a GST Certificate is referenced only as one of several supporting documents required under the tender conditions. The Block Development Officer, Kalaigaon, invited bids for settlement of ten markets, including the Puthimari Weekly Market, for 2023-24. Six bidders, including the petitioner Harendra Basumatary and Respondent No. 4, submitted bids. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 5,92,100/- was found responsive and was the second-highest; Respondent No. 4's bid of Rs. 4,55,100/- was the third-highest and also found responsive. The highest bid of Rs. 7,90,200/- was rejected as non-compliant because that bidder did not submit a land revenue receipt, GST Certificate, etc. Despite the petitioner being the highest responsive (valid) bidder, the market was settled in favour of Respondent No. 4 by an order dated 02.08.2023, based on an unnotified internal resolution of the Market Settlement Committee capping acceptable bids at three times the scheduled rate.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Bodoland Territorial Council authorities could rely on an internal Committee resolution, not notified to bidders, to reject the highest responsive bid as exceeding three times the scheduled rate.
  2. Whether settlement of the market in favour of a lower bidder (Rs. 4,55,100/-), whose bid also exceeded three times the scheduled rate, was consistent with the Committee's own stated rationale.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had offered the second-highest bid overall and the highest bid among responsive/compliant bidders (after the sole non-compliant highest bidder was excluded for missing documents including the GST Certificate), and had submitted the entire bid amount by demand draft, fully safeguarding the revenue interest of the BTC authorities.
  • The rejection of his higher bid, based on an internal resolution never notified to bidders, was arbitrary, especially since the accepted lower bid also exceeded the same three-times threshold that was purportedly applied against the petitioner.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Respondent No. 4 contended that since the petitioner's own bid was found to exceed three times the scheduled rate, it could not be accepted, and consequently the settlement in his favour was justified.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that judicial review of tender decisions checks for arbitrariness and mala fides, not the soundness of the commercial choice, but that changing the goalpost during a bidding process — through an unnotified internal resolution — could not be sustained, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML.
  • It found the settlement in favour of Respondent No. 4 doubly arbitrary: not only was the internal three-times cap never notified to bidders, but Respondent No. 4's own accepted bid also exceeded three times the scheduled rate, meaning the Committee's own stated rationale would equally have disqualified him.
  • The impugned settlement order dated 02.08.2023 was set aside, and the authorities were directed to revisit the settlement of Puthimari Weekly Market for the remaining contract period, based on the records of valid participating bidders, within one month.
  • The writ petition was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

GST features in this order only as one of the documentary requirements (a GST Certificate) that the highest overall bidder failed to submit, leading to that bid's exclusion — it is not itself the subject of any ruling. The substantive holding concerns administrative law: authorities cannot apply an internal, unnotified cap on bid values to reject a compliant bidder while accepting an even more non-compliant lower bid under the same supposed rule.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction for judicial review of administrative/tender action.
  • No specific GST statutory provision was interpreted; the GST Certificate was one item in the tender's list of mandatory supporting documents.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner, Harendra Basumatary; the impugned settlement order was set aside and the authorities directed to revisit the market settlement.

Case Details

Court: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Case No.: WP(C)/4957/2023
CNR: GAHC010189452023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury
Date of Judgment: 16.10.2023

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.