The Gauhati High Court, in a recent judgment, has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a resident of Narba Colony, Itanagar, challenging the tender process initiated by the Executive Engineer, DPIU, RWD, Laaying Yangte Division for the construction of a road project in Kurung-Kumey District.
The petitioner alleged that the tender process was initiated without adhering to the guidelines, which require a minimum of 250 inhabitants in the project area.
The petitioner also claimed that the consent of the landowners was not obtained, and the signatures of a few landowners were forged.
The petitioner further alleged that the project was initiated mala fide, with the intention of siphoning off public funds to favor certain individuals or firms.
However, the Itanagar Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held that a PIL is not maintainable in respect of tender matters, particularly when it involves development work in rural areas.
The court observed that it is for the intending participants of the tender process or the persons submitting their bids to challenge the tender process, and not for a third party to file a PIL.
The court also noted that it has no mechanism to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner.
The court observed that if such a PIL is entertained, it may open the floodgates for similar petitions, which may lead to unnecessary interference in the administrative process.
Furthermore, the court held that the issue of forgery of signatures of landowners is a matter that can be addressed through appropriate legal remedies, such as filing a complaint with the police or approaching the civil court for annulment of the document.
The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd v State of Tamilnadu, (2022) 1 SCC 165, which cautioned constitutional courts against interfering in contractual and tender matters disguised as PILs.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the PIL, holding that it is not maintainable in respect of tender matters.
The court also refrained from imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner, as the PIL was dismissed at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents.