Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010137412024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/132/2026 SAMAGRA SIKSHA ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI - 19, KAMRUP (METRO) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VERSUS SRI HEMANTA KARMAKAR S/O MONI MOHAN KARMAKAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S JK GROUP AND COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A. K DEV ROAD, GANESHPARA IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel, SSA and Ms. R. Barua, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : None. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 21.07.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam for the appellant/Samagra Siksha, Assam, which is the State level implementing agency for education related Schemes including infrastructure in schools. Page No.# 2/7 2. In this writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.7967/2022, whereby the writ petition, preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2022, the appellant floated a large-scale tender through Government e- Marketplace (GeM) portal for supply of approximately more than 30,000 sets of Dual Desks and Benches to be delivered in and around 1,443 schools across 30 districts in the State of Assam; the total estimated value of the tender being approximately Rs.31.73 crores. 4. One of the key eligibility criteria for the bidders was that they must have an average annual turnover of Rs.9.52 crores in the last three financial years (Financial Years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022). 5. A small furniture manufacturer, registered under the MSME Scheme, challenged the tender before the learned Single Judge vide WP(C) No.7967/2022 on the plea that the tender process violated several Government Rules and Guidelines. 6. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2023 opined that in view of Clause 7.14.2(II)(iii) of the Manual of Financial Management and Procurement, it was mandatory to procure furniture for Upper Primary Schools/Secondary Higher Secondary Schools through individual School Management Committees (SMCs) and/or Sub- Divisional Management Committees (SDMCs) and that any derogation from this requirement was in explicit violation of General Financial Rules (GFR) of 2017 regarding tender procedure thresholds. Page No.# 3/7 7. The learned Advocate General, Assam, while assailing the afore-noted judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in WP(C) No.7967/2022, whereby two writ petitions [WP(C) No.7967/2022 and WP(C) No.523/2023] were disposed off, pointed out from the Procurement Rules to be followed by Samagra Siksha for school education that it was mandatory for the Department to receive all bids through e-procurement portal in respect of all procurements and that the procurement activities under the Scheme would be at various levels and the tender process, as far as possible, through the GeM route of which the broad features would be as hereunder: (i) All the procurements will be through Single Implementing Agency [due to subsuming of the three schemes, namely, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) and Teacher Education (TE)] and, therefore, the procurement of goods, services and civil works would get regulated through a Single Implementing Agency. (ii) The procurement of goods, services and civil works (infrastructure) may have been mentioned at various levels but for economy and bulk procurement , the State could decide the level of procurement. [Emphasis provided] 8. The learned Advocate General, Assam further pointed out, to be fair in his approach, that the Policy also recommends that procurement of uniform being provided at the elementary level may be done at the State/District or school level but involvement and Page No.# 4/7 participation of the community should be encouraged. 9. Now, Samagra Siksha is an integrated Scheme for school education. In accordance with the Manual for Financial Management and Procurement, the procurement of furniture in the Government Upper Primary Schools/Secondary Schools/Higher Secondary Schools could be done by the SMC/SDMC/equivalent bodies for rural and urban areas. However, considering the large-scale supply needed for augmenting the infrastructure in the schools, a conscious decision was taken by the appellant to float a tender through GeM route to select a single supplier which would have resulted in economies of scale and uniformity in the quality of furniture to be supplied. 10. It was also argued that the learned Single Judge by taking a rigid approach, observed that the provisions of the FMP Manual and the Framework for Implementation of Samagra Shiksha mandate a bottom- up approach of planning as opposed to the top-down approach. The learned Single Judge found support in the so-called view of the Government of India in the MoHRD that the bottom-up approach of planning would reflect the reality at the grassroots level and a participatory planning process would not only create a sense of ownership amongst the stakeholders but would also create an awareness and help in the capacity building at various levels. 11. It was thus argued that this was an approach which cannot be discounted at all times but considering the large-scale supply of furniture in approximately 1500 schools across 30 districts, what was more important was supply of good materials, uniform in quality and for a Page No.# 5/7 reasonable price. The purpose of fixing the threshold eligibility criteria at a higher level was also to ensure the capacity of the supplier for supplying furniture at such large-scale. 12. We have examined the Manual on Financial Management and Procurement and found that there is only an advisory so far furniture in Government Upper Primary school is concerned, that procurement in such schools could also be done at the local level. However, such concession ought not to be taken to be a mandatory guideline; more so, when in the procurement activities under the new Scheme, it has been clearly stipulated that for economic and bulk procurement, it would be the decision of the State/appellant to choose and decide the level of procurement. 13. Since the impugned judgment was passed at the instance of the sole respondent, this Court had issued notice to him and he was also permitted to be served dasti. However, there is no appearance on his behalf. 14. The learned Advocate General, Assam, has shown to us the urgency in the matter as the entire process of procurement of school furniture stands halted because of the impugned judgment. 15. Going further, it appears that the core dispute in the present case would be as to who should procure school furniture: a Centralized State Agency like Samagra Siksha, Assam/appellant or the individual School Management Committee/Sub-Divisional Management Committee at the school level and whether Clause 7.14.2(II)(iii) is to be taken as a mandatory requirement. Does it deny the leeway to the State Page No.# 6/7 in cases of bulk purchase to have its own choice of procurement though, of course, through the GeM route? 16. We find that the provisions contained in Clause 7.4(ii) of the Manual on Financial Management and Procurement allows the State to decide the level of procurement for economy and bulk procurement and this provision overrides the provision relied upon by the learned Single Judge to cancel the entire tender process. Even otherwise, the practical considerations, namely, maintaining quality, specifications and uniformity of the furniture across thousands of schools would demand centralized procurement which would be more preferable to individual School Management Committees, who, in the present circumstances, may lack in expertise and capacity. 17. We have also taken into account the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, Assam that the turnover criteria fixed in the tender process is in accord with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Guidelines, which mandate an amount to the tune of 30% of the estimated value. 18. On an overall analysis of the facts of this case, we find that with the passing of the impugned judgment, the entire process of supply of furniture in the schools has been halted but unnecessarily even when under the Rules, the State has the liberty to choose the supplier on considerations of bulk purchase, uniformity and economy, which option was exercised by the State in floating a single tender. 19. For the afore-noted reasons, we set aside the judgment impugned dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge so far as Page No.# 7/7 WP(C) No.7967/2022 is concerned and permit the State to continue with the tender process for speedy supply of furniture to the schools. 20. In this context, we find the observation of the learned Single Judge that stringent conditions were imposed in the tender process, to be uncalled for and unjustified. 21. The writ appeal stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant