He did number say so but agreed to and has been supplying at that rate, till October, 1996.
Neither the interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated June 2, 1994 aforesaid number does the order of the Commissioner dated October 14, 1996 passed pursuant to the interim orders of this companyrt provide for any fluctuation in the rate of supply depending upon the fluctuation in the market rate in the exporting States, as provided by clause 16 of the Tender Conditions, which too appears rather unusual.
The tender was floated on May 28, 1993.
The respondent No.3 Dutta Associates states that the lowest quoted rate is 11.14.
The learned Single Judge directed vide order dated June 2, 1994 number be given the companytract, he shall be allowed to execute the companytract at the lowest quoted rate which is stated to be 9.20 by the writ petitioner.
If the lowest quoted rate is 9.20, it is that rate at which the companytract shall be given to the respondent No.3 It is pursuant to the said order that the appellant Dutta Associates has been supplying rectified spirit Rs.
On appeal, however, the Division Bench has allowed the writ appeal filed by Indo Merchatiles and has set aside the acceptance of the appellants tender.
If it was number possible for anyone to supply rectified spirit at a rate lower than Rs.
9.20 Shri Jitendra Nath Saikia Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh Rs.
Firstly, the tender numberice did number specify the viability range number did it say that only the tenders companying within the viability range will be companysidered.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
per LPL since June 1996 tell October 1996.
The exercise of determining the viability range and calling upon Dutta Associates to make a companynter offer on the alleged ground that the was the lowest tenderer among the eligible tenderer is outside the tender numberice.
As a matter of fact, numbersuch revision was made either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench.
Secondly, we have companycept of viability range though Sri Kapil Sibal, learned companynsel for the appellant, and the learned companynsel for the State of Assam tried to explain it to use.
Not only the rate obtaining during the period when the tenders were called was Rs.11.05 per LPL, the more significant feature is that during the period of about more than two years pending the writ petition and writ appeal, the appellant has been supplying rectified spirit Rs.
9.20 per LPL.
If that rate was number feasible or economic, he companyld well have said, sorry.
More significantly, the tender numberice did number even say that after receiving the tenders, the Commissioner Government would first determine the viability range and would then call upon the lowest eligible tenderer to make a companynter offer.
All these facts make the so called viability range and the very companycept of viability range look rather ridiculous and we are number very far from the end of the three year period for which the tenders were called for.
Fairness demanded that the authority should have numberified in the tender numberice itself the procedure which they proposed to adopt while accepting the tender.
As many as seventeen tenders mentioned below were received quoting the rate mentioned against each persons name M s. Himangsu Enterprises RK Bardoloi Road, Dibrugarh Rs.
14.72 the lower figure of the viability range, how companyld the appellant have been supplying the same at such a low rate an Rs.9.20 for such a long period.
After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the entire process leading to the acceptance of the appellants tender is vitiated by more than one illegality.
It may be relevant to numbere at this stage the circumstances in which the appellant volunteered to supply at the said rate.
The High Court accordingly directed that fresh tenders be called for awarding the companytract.
The rate, however, remains Rs.9.20p.
They did numberhing of that sort.
16.39 M s. New Ashish Enterprise TR Phukan Road, Guwahati Rs.
The Division Bench found that the Commissioner and the Government have acted unfairly in calling upon the appellant, Dutta Associates, alone to submit a companynter offer while number giving a similar opportunity to other tenderers.
limited Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh Rs.
13.20 Shri Umesh Chandra Bora Laukuli, Tinsukia Rs.
14.55 Shri Pranab Kumar Rajkhowa Coal Road, Jorhat Rs.
14.28 M s. Noble Sales Agency GS Road, Dispur, Guwahati Rs.
If viability range was the relevant basis, then one would have expected the Commissioner and the Government of Assam to have accepted the tender at Sr.
They called upon Dutta Associates appellant herein to revise his offer which he did by quoting Rs.
The Commissioner, of companyrse, chose the first respondent, Indo Merchantiles, Over the appellant, for reason given by him in his order dated October 14, 1996.
The order of the learned Single Judge aforesaid does number also say that the rate specified therein is tentative and that it shall be subject to revision at the final hearing of the writ petition.
The said order did number companypel the appellant Respondent No.3 in the writ petition to supply at the rate of Rs.9.20p.
12.57 M s Onash Enterprises GS Road, Guwahati Rs.
It is equally significant to numbere that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court which directed the Government to implement the orders of the Gauhati High Court with respect to interim arrangement negotiations were held with both the appellant and the first respondent herein both offered to supply at Rs.9.20p.
It has also made certain directions for the period until fresh tenders are called for and finalised.
Indo Mercantiles, the respondent herein, filed the writ petition and asked for and interim order.
P.JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
16.13 M s. Pradip Kumar Khaitan AT Road, Jorhat Rs.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
15.55 M s. Mercentiles Pvt.
Nos.1 and 2 were found ineligible and were, therefore, excluded from companysideration.
Indo Merchatiles submitted that number accepting his tender at Rs.
and the appellants companynsel has been making a grievance of the Commissioner number accepting the appellants offer.
13.99 M s. Aco Traders Rajgarh Road, Guwahati Rs.
He did number say that the offer of Dutta Associates was number a genuine offer or that the is number in a position to fulfil the terms of the companytract, if entered into with him.
15.55 Shri Vijay Kumar Jasrasaria Guwahati Rs.
11.75 M s. Civiliyar Enterprises Rajgarh, Guwahati Rs.
No.3 Dutta Associates Private Limited, the appellant herein, his being the lowest tender.
Inexplicable indeed are the ways of the rulers on some occasions and this is one such instance.
He did number do so.
If that were so, one would have excepted the Commissioner to accept the offer of the person at Sr.
The Commissioner of Excise, Assam called for tenders for wholesale supply of rectified spirit Grade 1 to the Excise Warehouse at Tinsukia for the period May 16, 1994 to May 15, 1996.
11.14 Shri Pradip Kumar Dutta Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh Rs.
13.69 M s. North East Trade Agency Athgaon, Guwahati Rs.
Ltd. Bishnu Market, Guwahati Rs.
15.05 M s. United Assam Company Rupali Path, Jorhat Rs.
16.55 It is stated that out of seventeen tenders received, tenders of persons mentioned at Sr.
13 in the aforesaid list of tenders, filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court questioning the acceptance of appellants tender.
16.05 Shri Dilip Rajkhowa, Tinsukia Rs.
15.55 and accepting the tender of the appellant by making him revise his bid is companytrary to law, unfair and arbitrary.
10.48 M s. Dutta Associate Pvt.
