GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 27 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 26:

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in granting the entire contract for "Hiring of Services for 12 No. Scrapping Winch Units for Assam Asset for 5 years" to the respondent No.5 without taking into consideration Clause 29.1.1 of the Instructions/Information to the Bidders, which is Annexure-1 to the bid documents.

3. Taking into account that the petitioner's case solely hinges upon Clause 29.1.1 (i), the same is reproduced herein under:-

"29.1.1 (i) In case participating MSEs quote price within price band of L1+15%, such MSE shall be considered for award of contract by bringing down their price to L1 price in a situation where L1 price is from someone other than a MSE. In case of more than one bidder eligible for purchase preference, then the eligible MSE(s) shall be allowed to share portion of supply in the following manner:

(a)................................................................"

4. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of that the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner participated as an MSE Enterprise. It is the further case of the petitioner that from a perusal of the technical evaluation as well as the financial evaluation of the respondent No.5, it does not appear that the respondent No.5 was evaluated as an MSE enterprise.

5. Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the basis of Clause 29.1.1(i), submitted that as the L1 bidder, i.e. the respondent No.5 was not evaluated as MSE enterprise, the Respondent Authorities were required to abide by the stipulations contained in the said Clause that if any MSE enterprise quotes a price within the price band of L1+15%, such MSE shall be considered for award of the contract by bringing down their price to L1 price in a situation where L1 price is from someone other than an MSE.

6. Referring to the technical evaluation as well as the financial evaluation of the respondent No.5 at Annexure Nos.4 & 5 to the writ petition, Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Authorities have all along treated the respondent No.5 as a nonMSE enterprise.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2Yvkdico7NpS59ddVVklWRF8eiViJRnzdnyV%2FYF%2BVpK&caseno=WP(C)/5768/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010219702025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.