Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 16.07.2025 vs North Eastern Hill University on 16 July, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:616
Serial No. 47
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 323 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16.07.2025
Smti. Ilinda Marbaniang Ripnar.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. North Eastern Hill University, Shillong,
represented by its Registrar,
Umshing, Mawkynroh, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya - 793002.
...Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. N.Khera, Adv.
Mr. T.Marngar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Sen, SC with
Ms. E.Blah, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
1
2025:MLHC:616
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The brief facts are that the respondent vide an NIT dated 29-06-2022
had invited bids for auction / sale of 12 numbers of old vehicles. The
petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for 1 vehicle and was the second
highest bidder for a total of 7 other vehicles listed in the tender. The
petitioner was then invited to attend a negotiation Committee meeting on
30-09-2022, wherein she was informed that as the highest bidder for the 7
other vehicles no longer wished to take part in the tender process, the
petitioner being the second highest bidder was therefore offered the
opportunity to acquire the said 7 vehicles at the rate set by the respondent.
Thereafter, on being unable to meet the rate given by the respondent, the
petitioner agreed to an increase of ₹ 10,000/- per vehicle which was agreed
upon by the concerned respondent. However, as nothing transpired pursuant
to the said negotiation, the petitioner sent multiple reminders to the
respondent and it was only after several months, when by letter dated 19-
01-2024, she was informed that due to the withdrawal of the initial highest
bidder, and the Committee formed to negotiate with the petitioner, though
had negotiated the rate, the Central Purchase Committee found the offer,
after review, unsatisfactory. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the
negotiated bid, even though the tender condition at Clause No. 3, had
2
2025:MLHC:616
prescribed that on the failure of the selected tenderer to pay the entire cost
of vehicles, the offer would be given to the next highest bidder, the petitioner
is before this Court.
2. Mr. N.Khera, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as
per the terms of the tender, the petitioner being the next highest bidder for
the 7 other vehicles should have been considered the successful bidder as
the rate offered by the petitioner at ₹ 10,000/- more than the quoted rate had
been agreed upon by the Tender Negotiation Committee. He further submits
that the rejection on the ground that the offer of the petitioner was below the
base rate or reserved price is baseless, inasmuch as, no base price had been
mentioned in the tender document. Further, it is contended that for the
vehicle being No. ML-05A-7870 (Mini truck) wherein the petitioner was the
highest bidder, the respondents immediately on the payment of the quoted
amount of ₹ 1,05,600/- had issued lifting orders dated 06-02-2023,
authorising the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle. The very fact that
the petitioner was permitted to take possession, it is argued goes to show
that there was no base price fixed, or that the same was a consideration for
the respondent. He therefore submits, that even after due negotiation, the
offer of the petitioner being arbitrarily rejected citing the reason that the
same was below the base price and that it was on the directions of the Central
Purchase Committee is illegal. It is finally submitted that the respondent
3
2025:MLHC:616
having not adhered to the conditions contained in the tender document, their
action in rejecting the petitioner’s bid is illegal and arbitrary.
3. Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the respondent University has
submitted that the decision to reject the bid of the petitioner was decided by
the Central Purchase Committee, even though an increased offer had been
made, was that the same was still below the rate fixed by the Transport
Department, Government of Meghalaya. It is then further submitted that on
the failure of the highest bidder to lift the vehicles due to financial issues,
the respondent considering the quoted rate of the petitioner compared to the
base rate of the Transport Department, had invited the petitioner for
negotiation through its Sub-Committee on 10-03-2023, and though the Sub-
Committee had recommended the petitioner on the enhanced price, the same
still being below the base rate, was not accepted by the Central Purchase
Committee in its meeting held on 01-06-2023.
4. Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel on the powers of the Central Purchase
Committee, has submitted that this Committee oversees the entire tender
process for purchases in the respondent University and that for all practical
purposes is the sole decision making body in such matters. The learned
counsel in this regard, has referred to the Minutes of the meeting of the
Central Purchase Committee held on 24-08-2022, wherein the tenders were
4
2025:MLHC:616
opened, Minutes of meeting held on 01-09-2022, wherein a 3 Member Sub-
Committee was constituted to negotiate the rates with the second highest
bidder, which were to be placed for approval in the next meeting, and
Minutes of the meeting dated 02-12-2022, wherein the next highest bidder
was to be offered at the rate fixed by the Transport Department, Government
of Meghalaya. He contends that as the rates offered by the petitioner not
meeting the requirements as decided by the Central Purchase Committee,
her bid was not considered feasible. The learned counsel then concludes his
submissions by maintaining that due process has been followed and the
rejection of the petitioner’s bid and decision taken in the meeting of the
Central Purchase Committee dated 01-06-2023, for re-tendering the
vehicles, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, but was done on the basis
of a proper decision making process.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. At the outset, this Court considers it necessary to refer to the tender
dated 29-06-2022, floated by the respondent whereby e-tenders had been
invited from eligible tenderers. In Section I of the tender document which
contains the clauses for invitation for bids and also Section V wherein, the
details of the vehicles to be auctioned have been described, though elaborate
details and requirements have been set forth, no reserved or base price has
been mentioned at any place in the entire document. The terms and
5
2025:MLHC:616
conditions relevant for the purposes of the case however, have been given
in Section IV of the tender document in 3 clauses namely, clauses 1, 2 and
3 and are reproduced herein below:
“SECTION IV
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The Vehicles will be sold out on “As is where is basis”. It
will be available for display outside the premises of NEHU,
Umshing Mawkynroh Shillong 793022, Meghalaya for
inspection between 11.00 AM to 4.0 0PM on any working
day before submitting the tender.
2. Interested Bidders may inspect the vehicles in the
Permanent Campus of the University during office hours.
3. The selected Tenderer should arrange to pay the entire cost
of the vehicle(s) within 10(ten) days from the date of issue
of lifting order, failing which he/she will forfeit the security
deposit and the offer will be given to the next highest
bidder.”
7. Clause 3 of the terms and conditions it is noted, provides that on the
failure of the highest bidder or selected tenderer to pay the entire cost, the
offer will be given to the next highest bidder. In this context therefore, the
petitioner with regard to the 7 other vehicles where she was the next highest
bidder had been invited for negotiations. As noted earlier, the petitioner in
her meeting with the Sub-Committee constituted by the Central Purchase
Committee, had offered an enhanced rate of ₹ 10,000/- over the quoted rate
which was agreed to by the Sub-Committee and put up for approval before
the Central Purchase Committee. From a detailed perusal of the Minutes of
6
2025:MLHC:616
the meetings dated 24-08-2022, 01-09-2022, 02-12-2022 and 01-06-2023,
the entire sequence of the decision making process has been revealed, which
for the sake of convenience, relevant extracts thereof relating to the tender
is reproduced herein below:
"MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL PURCHASE
TH
COMMITTEE HELD ON 24 AUGUST, 2022, AT 2PM IN
THE VC CONFERENCE ROOM, ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDING, NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY,
SHILLONG.
Item No. 2: Opening of e-tender for the auction of the old and
condemned NEHU vehicles.
1. The E-tender for Auction/Sale of old Vehicles Tender
No. F122/Admnll/94Voll/635 published on the
29.06.2022 was opened in the presence of the CPC
members on the 24.08.22.
2. The Online Technical Bid was opened and the
following is the summary of the bidders who
qualified/not qualified for the financial bid:
Sl. Bidder Submitted Token Status Remarks
No. Date
1. Sangliana 19-07- 43920220719203100 Disqualified DOCUMENTS
Mylliemngap 2022 ASKED FOR
20:31 IN SECTION
VI OF THE
TENDER NOT
SUBMITTED
AND
UPLOADED.
2. M/s.J.S . 27-07- 28120220727171500 Disqualified DOCUMENTS
Enterprise 2022 ASKED FOR
17:15 IN SECTION
VI OF THE
TENDER NOT
SUBMITTED
AND
UPLOADED.
7
2025:MLHC:616
3. Ilinda 29-07- 44020220729104900 In the
Marbaniang 2022 competition.
Ripnar 10:49
4. M/s. V.Khongsit 19-07- 44320220719182500 Disqualified NO
2022 PHYSICAL
18:25 EMD
RECEIVED
AS PER
TENDER.
5. Riwaniung 19-07- 44120220719190800 In the
Mylliemngap 2022 competition
19:08
6. Sanjib Traders 19-07- 44420220719170100 In the
2022 competition
17:01
7. M.L.Consortium 28-07- 29720220728150700 In the
2022 competition
15:07
8. Betar Syiem 20-07- 5520220720101620 Disqualified NO
PHYSICAL
2022 EMD
RECEIVED
10:16 AS PER
TENDER.
9. S.G.Pathaw 25-07- 43720220725171900 Disqualified DOCUMENTS
ASKED FOR
2022 IN SECTION
VI OF THE
17:19 TENDER NOT
SUBMITTED
AND
UPLOADED.
3. Four bidders qualified for the Financial Bid which was
opened online in the presence of the CPC members. The
comparative statement may be seen at Annexure A.
4. The members also resolved to negotiate with the highest
bidders in the next CPC meeting for the prices they bid
less than the estimated price arrived at by the Transport
Dept, Government of Meghalaya on 27th Oct 2020 {as per
GFR 2017, Rule 219, Clause ii(d)}.
5. It is to be noted from price bid by all the highest bidders
for each item the total amount is Rs. 18,70,102/- and the
Total Price Estimated by the Transport Department,
8
2025:MLHC:616
Government of Meghalaya is Rs. 18,40,000/- (a gain of
Rs. 30,102/-)”.
"MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL PURCHASE
st
COMMITTEE HELD ON 1 SEPTEMBER, 2022, AT 3PM
IN THE VC CONFERENCE ROOM, ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDING, NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY,
SHILLONG.
Item No. 2: e-tender for the auction of the old and condemned
NEHU vehicles.
As per the resolution of the last CPC held on 24th August, 2022,
negotiation with the highest bidders for the prices they bid less
than the estimated price arrived at by the Transport
Department, Government of Meghalaya on 27 th Oct 2020, was
approved. However, the bidders were not invited for the
negotiations in the present CPC meeting due to time
constraints. Accordingly, the matter was discussed and it was
resolved that a three member sub-committee for carrying out
the negotiations be constituted with the following members:
Prof. N.Saha, Mr. N.I.Barbhuyan and Mr. I.Lyngdoh.
Thereafter, the outcome of the negotiations maybe placed in the
next CPC meeting for approval.”
“MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL PURCHASE
COMMITTEE HELD ON 02 DECEMBER, 2022, AT 2.30
PM IN THE VC CONFERENCE ROOM,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NORTH-EASTERN
HILL UNIVERSITY, SHILLONG.
Item No. 2: Follow-up action on the e-tender for auction of old
and condemned NEHU vehicles.
A. A duly constituted three member sub-committee
for carrying out the negotiations with the highest
bidders submitted the report and the following
recommendations was accepted by the CPC.
i. That due to the withdrawal of the highest bidder
M/s Sanjib Enterprise the next highest bidder will9
2025:MLHC:616be offered at the rate the Transport Department,
Government of Meghalaya had accessed the said
vehicles as per GFR. The CPC also resolved that
the same Sub-Committee will also negotiate with
the next highest bidder/s in view of the bid
withdrawal of M/s Sanjib Traders for the said
vehicles.
ii. The final rates arrived at during negotiations for
a) ILINDA MARBANIANG RIPNAR for 60 (Mini
Truck) ML-05-A-7870 is Rs. 1,05,600.0/- b)
RIWANIUNG MYLLIEMNGAP for Armada ML-
05-B-8777 is Rs. 75,500/- and for Ambassador
ML-05-C-7791 is Rs. 35,500/- and c) MELINDA
LANGRIN for Tata Sumo ML-05-C-0273 is Rs.
47,200/-.
B. The EMD of M/s Sanjib Traders will be forfeited
because of the withdrawal.”
"MINUTES OF THE CENTRAL PURCHASE
ST
COMMITTEE HELD ON 1 JUNE, 2023 AT 2.30 P.M. IN
THE VC CONFERENCE ROOM, ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDING, NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY,
SHILLONG.
Item No. 4: Auction taken on the minutes of CPC meeting of
02.12.2022.
i) Vide letter F.No.1-22-4/ADMN-II/94/Vol-1/985
dated 21.03.2023, the Assistant Registrar,
Administration, NEHU submitted the minutes of
the sub-committee meeting of 10.03.2023 for
negotiations with the 2nd highest bidder in
connection with the financial bids of the tender for
auction of old NEHU vehicles on account of the
withdrawal of offer from the 1st highest bidder.
After a thorough discussion, it was resolved that
the quoted items be retendered with a higher EMD
as the prices offered by the 2nd highest bidder are
very low even after negotiations in comparison
with the prices of the 1st Bidder and the Transport
10
2025:MLHC:616
Department, Government of Meghalaya estimated
price arrived at on 3.10.2020.”
8. It appears that the entire decision to reject the offer of the writ
petitioner after negotiations was solely on the basis that the offer did not
meet the rate given by the Transport Department, Government of
Meghalaya. In this regard, it is important to first note that the base price or
reserved price or for that matter, the rate given by the Transport Department,
Government of Meghalaya does not appear anywhere in the tender
document which would have enabled the bidders to be informed about the
expected price. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the
respondent while rejecting the bid of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the terms
and conditions as given in a tender document governs the tender process
with regard to eligibility and also other criteria that are to be fulfilled by
bidders. In the instant case, what has been resorted to is the imposition of a
non-existent condition or tender clause in demanding that the rate quoted
should be not less than the rate given by the Transport Department,
Government of Meghalaya. Curiously, though this stand has been sought to
be justified by the respondent, the fact that the petitioner was the highest
bidder for Vehicle No. ML-05A-7870 (Mini truck) and given possession at
the quoted rate remains unexplained. A tendering authority is not expected
to have two standards in the same tendering process as is apparent in the
11
2025:MLHC:616
instant case. The inconsistencies and lapses as discussed above have resulted
in the respondent changing the rules of the game after the same has
commenced.
9. In the result therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the
rejection of the petitioner’s bid being based on a flawed decision making
process and against the pronouncements of settled law, the rejection of the
bid of the petitioner is deemed to be unjustifiable, arbitrary and as such, the
same is interfered with. The impugned communications accordingly are set
aside and the respondent is directed to take corrective measures
expeditiously.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 12
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.07.16 06:10:26 IST
[ad_1]
Source link