Pvt. Ltd., Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS) and Ors. Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Borah, Adv. For the Respondent (s) : Mr. K. Paul, Adv. (For R 13) Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. C.T. Sangma, Adv. (For R 4) i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes Law journals etc. ii) Whether approved for publication in press: No 1. The brief facts of the case as set out by the petitioner company is that an online open tender dated 25.08.2015 was floated by the respondent No. 1, wherein online tenders in two bids system were invited from established, experienced manufacturers or their authorized representatives for the Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Gas Pipeline and Manifold system (including operation for 10 years) on turnkey basis. 26.10.2015 was fixed as the last date for submission of tenders/bid documents online and also for opening of Technocommercial bids of the tenderers. WP(C) No. 238 of 2018 Page 1 of 28 2. An important criteria laid down, pursuant to the General Instructions to the tenderers, namely clause 19.2, was with regard to the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) which stipulated that the tenderers/bidders registered with the National Small Industries Corporation Limited (NSIC) were eligible for exemption from payment of the EMD amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. The petitioner sought exemption in view of the fact that the firm was registered with the NSIC, and in possession of the NSIC Government Purchase Enlistment certificate for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Gas Pipeline and Manifold system. As such, the petitioner participated in the tender process without deposit of the said EMD amount. However, vide tender summary report dated 27.11.2015 which was uploaded on 31.05.2016, the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the offered stores against Bill Of Quantities (BOQ) for certain items as contained in the tender were not listed in the store details of the NSIC certificate of the petitioner, thus rendering the petitioner's bid invalid and ineligible. 3. The said action of the respondents was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 294 of 2016, which was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2017, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner then preferred a writ appeal against the said order which was numbered as WA No. 40 of 2017 which was allowed, with certain directions to the respondents 1, 2 & 3, to take a reasoned and considered decision by a speaking order, in relation to the claim of the petitioner seeking exemption, keeping in reference the stipulations of the tender document. Thereafter, the respondents again by order dated 22.12.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner for seeking exemption from payment of EMD on the ground that the NSIC certificate of the petitioner was not in consonance with the MSME Act, 2006. This was put to challenge by the petitioner by way of WP (C) No. 3 of 2018 but on the recall of the order dated 22.12.2017 by the respondents, the writ petition was closed on 07.02.2018. Thereafter, on reconsideration the respondents vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2018 rejected the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of exemption of EMD did not meet the provisions notified in respect of clause 19.2 of the ebidding documents. The said supply order was then issued in favour of the WP(C) No. 238 of 2018 Page 2 of 28 respondent No. 4 on 14.06.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said rejection of the bid and the representation is again before this Court by means of the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Paul, CGC for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior advocate assisted by Mr. C.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that