TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner and the respondent No.5 had participated in the tender process for settlement of the M.G. Bazar F.L. Shop No.4 and for the period as noted in response to the DNIT No.5562-67/F.XX-1(3)/CEW/SFLCL/20 dated 15.01.2020 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for the periods of 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022- 2023. During opening of the technical bids in two bids system, the petitioner had observed serious deficiency in the tender documents uploaded by the respondent No.5. Hence, he had lodged a formal objection on 24.02.2020 demanding rejection of the tender of the respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, from the documents as uploaded in the official website of the respondents No.1 to 4, it revealed that the documents uploaded by the respondent No.5 were not in conformity with the requirement of the said DNIT. It has been asserted by the petitioner that on perusal of the documents submitted by the respondent No.5 it surfaced that the proposed shop premise is a rented premise and the owner of the shop-premise was one Subhadeep Saha. To substantiate the tenancy relation with Subhadeep Saha, the respondent No.5 submitted the following documents and declaration: (i) No objecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said website. On receipt of the said letter dated 24.02.2020 the respondent No.4 issued a notice on 05.03.2020 upon the petitioner and asked him to appear before him on 06.03.2020 at 11 am to have substantiated his grievance. The petitioner accordingly, appeared before the respondent No.4 and analyzed the documents uploaded by the respondent No.5 and claimed that the papers as uploaded by the respondent No.5 are not adequate to establish the financial ability of the respondent No.5. He had also raised an additional objection that the shop premises must be pucca or semi-pucca but from the touji document, it appeared to the petitioner that the shop premise is a kutha viti tin shed [KVT]. He has also contended that there is no touji in M.G. Bazar under No.21MGD1832. The petitioner was asked to substantiate that allegation by documentary evidence. Then the petitioner took initiative to get disclosure or confirmation of such fact from Agartala Municipal Corporation. Agartala Municipal Corporation by their letter dated 18.03.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition ] had intimated the petitioner that there was no touji in M.G. Bazar under No.21MGD1832. The said information was placed bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gularities which cannot be waived by the official respondents, particularly the respondent No.3, the Collector of Excise, West Tripura. Even the petitioner took objection for non-submission of any rent agreement. The petitioner has further asserted that even though touji No.21MGB1832 was uploaded by the respondent No.5 but from the letter dated 18.03.2020 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] it revealed that there was no touji in M.G. Bazar area under touji No.21MGB1832. Thus, in the eye of law the declaration from the owner of the said shop as proposed by the respondent No.5 cannot be accepted as correct. Hence, the technical bid of the respondent No.5 ought to have been discarded in the face of the objection as raised by the petitioner. In the premises as noted before, the petitioner has urged for the reliefs as stated. [4] The respondents by filing the reply have disputed the allegations of the petitioner. The official respondents have stated in reply that the writ petition cannot be maintained inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to make out a case where this court can exercise its power of judicial review in the matter of tendering. In Para-7 of the reply, the official responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DNIT. The respondent No.5 had submitted the touji along with no objection certificate attested by the Notary from the touji holder of the proposed premises. Thereafter, the official respondents have stated that from the field verification report as submitted by the team headed by the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, it revealed that the premises as proposed by the respondent No.5 is a three storied RCC building having a plinth area of 207.93 square feet in the ground floor and 199.815 square feet area in the first floor. Thus, the total area came to be 407.745 square feet. During the field inquiry, according to the official respondents, it revealed that the respondent No.5 had proposed the southern portion of the ground floor of the building comprising as 'as 89.61 Sw. Ft. and the full portion of the 1 st floor measuring 199.815 Sq. Ft., i.e. total 289.425 Sq.Ft. Simultaneously, the Northern side of the same ground floor measuring 118.32 Sq.Ft. is proposed location of Sri Abhishek Dahiya for M.G. Bazar F.L. Shop No.3.' The official respondents have further stated that no specific condition has been laid either in the DNIT or in the Tripura E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for non-compliance of Clauses 4(ii) & (iii) of the DNIT. According to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, those conditions are essential and the standards laid by the tendering authority cannot departed conveniently. But in the case in hand, the respondents No.1 to 4, particularly the respondent No.3, has departed from the standard by not appreciating the documents relating to the immovable property and the banking transactions fairly at all. Else, they would have noticed that in the field verification report it has been clearly observed that the construction of proposed shop was unauthorized one, as paper including the authorized plan by Agartala Municipal Corporation could not be furnished either by the touji holder or the respondent No.5. If there were fair assessment, the tendering authority would have come to an inference that the financial ability of the respondent No.5 is doubtful and cannot generate confidence to settle the said M.G. Bazar F.L. Shop No.4 in his favour. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that no tenancy agreement has been uploaded by the respondent No.5. Even the touji number that has been referred by him does not exist in that area and that informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or purpose of appreciating the rival contentions as surfaced, it would be apposite to gainfuly reproduce the provisions of Clause 4(ii) and 4 (iii) of the DNIT. Those provisions are as under: "(ii) a statement of immovable property along with supporting document (s) and current Bank balance mentioning name of Bank and Account No. to prove his/her financial ability to carry on the business. A certificate from the concerned Bank Manager about the present bank balance of the bidder mentioning the Account No. should also be given. (iii) The tenderer may propose not more than two premises at the time of submission of tender against one particular shop. The area proposed premises should not be less than 100 square feet and the details of the location & description of the building (owned or hired) including all required document (s) of the building i.e. Khatian/Touzi/Registered sale deed and in case of hired building a no objection certificate from the owner of the building along with supporting document (s) duly attested by the Notary Public should be submitted." [9] It is evident that it is not the case of the petitioner that no document as required by the Clauses 4(ii) & (iii) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgment of Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the equality clause of the United States Constitution, but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in England, the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what Prof. Wade's has observed his celebrated commentary titled as Administrative Law [see 4th edition, Pages 540-41]. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. [12] In G. J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488, the apex court had occasion to revisit that principle and to observe in the context of that case as follows: "It is, therefore, obvious that both having regard to the constitutional mandate of Article 14 as also the judicially evolved rule of administrative law, the respondent 1 was not entitled to act arbitrarily in accepting the tender of the respondents 4, but was bound to conform to the standard or norm laid down in paragraph 1 of the notice i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nistrative law inhibiting arbitrary action." [13] We are inclined to apply the said principle in the present case. The respondents No.1,2,3 & 4 cannot take a stand that they can depart from the standard by which they professed its action to be judged. They must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Thus, what the respondents No.1,2, 3 & 4 have asserted in their reply that the Clauses 4(ii) & (iii) of the DNIT are not essential and mandatory in nature is not accepted by us. That plea is rejected. But we find that even if that plea is rejected, their decision may not be affected substantially. What we have observed that the respondent No.5 has clearly stated that he does not have the immovable property but the said respondent has submitted the statement in respect of the bank balance and the supporting documents issued by the Bank Manager of the bank where the respondent No.5 maintained his savings and there is no dispute that the said documents were duly notorized. [14] So far the question of the tenancy agreement is concerned, we are of the view that what is required in terms of the Clauses 4(iii) of the DNIT is uploading of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that that proposed room is in the Northern side of the ground floor measuring 118.32 Sq. Ft. Further, it is to be stated here that neither the bidder nor Touji holder could produce any permission order at the time of field enquiry regarding construction of 2(two) storied building in it. [Emphasis added] [17] Neither from the reply nor from the records so produced it can be gathered how the official respondents had dealt with the said observation as regards non-availability of any permission order in the physical verification report. This is a serious issue cannot be simply brushed aside. [18] Even though we are not satisfied that the petitioner has otherwise made out a case for extending our power of judicial review based on the objection raised in terms of Clauses 4(ii) and 4 (iii) of the DNIT keeping the issue legal construction aside. It should be noted that in exercise of the power of judicial review court cannot embark on roving inquiry. The precincts of the judicial review are well defined that it should be confined to its ambit in respect of the process as delineated by the competent authority or by law but should not essay the merit of the decision unless of course....