The Meghalaya High Court has asked the State government to clarify as to why it limited the bids for supply of aluminium roofing sheets to only a few manufacturers. The court also fixed October 14 for the government to reply on the matter.
During today’s hearing on a writ petition filed by Manaksia Aluminium Company Limited, the High Court said that the only doubt that remains in the mind of the court is to whether the amendment of the clauses as inserted have altered the eligibility criteria, or with the retention of the requirement for registration with MIIPP, the restriction still prevails.
“Though no doubt, the court cannot substitute or prescribe clauses over and above the conditions prescribed in the tender, the only concern is that Article 14 should not be breached, to ensure that there is a level playing field without any hint of cartelisation, or limiting the bids to such an extent that the same will be limited to only a few manufacturers,” Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew said in an order today.
“Though it is not in public interest that such projects be stalled or held up by orders of the court or otherwise, this court however deems it fit at this stage itself to direct the State respondent to clarify this view on the next date. Keeping in view the fact that the last date for submission of bids as per the NIQ is fixed on October 15, 2024 at 2 pm, let this matter appear on October 14, 2024 in the motion column itself for further consideration,” he added.
Manaksia Aluminium Company Limited in the writ petition has challenged certain conditions given in the Notice Inviting Quotations ((NIQ), such as, Clause No. 1 with regard to residency in the State of Meghalaya, Clause A (1) having their manufacturing units/industries in the State of Meghalaya, Clause A (3) with regard to registration under the MIIPP (Meghalaya Industrial & Investment Promotion Policy), Clause A (6) with regard to Registration Certificate with MIIPP, and Clause A (13) with regard to Trading license from the District Council.
The State government on this challenge, came up with a corrigendum whereby Clause 1 has been relaxed to include bonafide citizens of India, Clause A (1) changed to preferably having their manufacturing units/industries in the State of Meghalaya, but however, with regard to the other requirements i.e. Registration Number and Registration Certificate with MIIPP and with regard to Trading license, apart from doing away with the three prior years of possessing one, no other change have been made.
However, the company told the High Court that notwithstanding the amendment of the NIQ at Clause 1 and Clause A (1), which would make them otherwise eligible, the presence of a mandatory registration with MIIPP, effectively bars the petitioner from submitting its bids since the entity or company has to have a manufacturing unit in Meghalaya.
Additional Advocate General N D Chullai in his reply told the court that there is no bar for Manaksia Aluminium Company Limited to submit its bid and that acceptance or rejection of the bid will be consequent upon the examination of the same by the duly constituted tender committee.
Chullai said that with the relaxation of the Clause with regard to residency and manufacturing units, the company should no longer be aggrieved. He further contended that the prescription of eligibility criteria being within the exclusive domain of the owner of the work, no judicial review is called for.
