Bidders cannot be disqualified for surrendering prior settlements unless such a disqualification clause exists in the NIT.

The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation (AFDC) issued an NIT on March 14, 2022, for the settlement of Godadhar Meen Mahal. The petitioner, as the highest bidder (H1), was offered the settlement on June 9, 2022, but failed to execute the agreement, leading to the cancellation of his offer on December 21, 2022

A fresh NIT (No. 20/2022) was issued on December 16, 2022. The petitioner participated again, but the Evaluation Committee rejected his technical bid on January 12, 2023, on the grounds that he had previously surrendered/failed to execute the agreement for the same fishery

Consequently, the fishery was settled in favour of Respondent No. 6 on February 9, 2023

1. Whether the respondent authorities were legally justified in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid based on his past failure to execute an agreement when such a condition was absent from the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness in State action, particularly in the contractual and tender process

Clause 2.9 of the NIT regarding "defaulters"

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, which holds that while the employer is the best judge of tender terms, interference is warranted if the interpretation is perverse or mala fide

The Court also applied the principle that administrative actions must be based on existing tender conditions and cannot introduce new disqualifications mid-process without notice

The Court scrutinized the minutes of the meeting dated January 12, 2023, which recorded that the petitioner was disqualified solely because he "did not execute the agreement with AFDC" in the previous tender cycle

Upon reviewing the NIT dated December 16, 2022, the Court found no clause stipulating that a bidder who previously surrendered a settlement would be disqualified from future tenders

The Court rejected the argument from Respondent No. 6 that the petitioner should be treated as a "defaulter" under Clause 2.9, noting that this was not the reason assigned by the AFDC at the time of rejection

The Court reasoned that by disqualifying the petitioner for a reason not listed in the NIT, the respondents effectively blacklisted the petitioner for this specific process without due process or legal basis, rendering the decision unfair, arbitrary, and a violation of Article 14

The Court set aside the minutes of the meeting dated January 12, 2023, and the consequential settlement order dated February 9, 2023, in favour of Respondent No. 6 [p. 12]. The respondent authorities were directed to either take a fresh decision on the technical bids under NIT No. 20/2022 or proceed with a fresh tender process [p. 12]. Respondent No. 6 was granted liberty to seek a refund of his security deposit