Gauhati High Court
Omega Elevators vs The Dean (Ipm) And Anr on 22 August, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010188072025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4812/2025
OMEGA ELEVATORS
REGISTERED OFFICE 11 SANJEEV BAUG SOCIETY NEW SHARDA MANDIR
ROAD PALDI AHMEDABAD 380007 BRANCH OFFICE HOUSE NO 10 1ST
FLOOR PRAGATI PATH OPPOSITE 5TH BYE LANE RAJGARH ROAD
GUWAHATI 3 DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM REP BY THE MANAGER CUM
AUTHORIZED REP BY SHRI HIMADRI BORA
VERSUS
THE DEAN (IPM) AND ANR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI
GUWAHATI 781039
2:HOS (ENGINEERING) IPM SECTION
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI
GUWAHATI 78103
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. B Hasurkar
Mr. A Das
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. RP Kakoti, Senior Advocate
Mr. S Sutradhar
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Page No.# 2/6
ORDER
22.08.2025
Heard Mr. B Hasurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Issue notice making it returnable on 26.08.2025 at 2.P.M.
3. Mr. S Sutradhar, the learned counsel assisting Mr. RP Kakoti, the
learned Senior Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Extra copies of the writ petition be served upon Mr. Sutradhar
during the course of the day.
5. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the qualifying criteria
incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 24.06.2025,
whereby only certain brands were held to be eligible to participate.
The petitioner upon coming to learn about the said NIT had submitted
a representation on 14.08.2025 requesting that the petitioner's brand
should also be brought into the ambit of the brands which are eligible
to participate. The said representation has been rejected vide a
communication dated 18.08.2025 informing the petitioner, inter alia,
that the Technical Expert Committee of the Institute had approved the
lifts to be installed in the Institute.
6. Mr. B Hasurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Page No.# 3/6
petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by
the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13716-
13717/2020 rendered in Omega Elevators Vs. State Of M.P. &
Anr., wherein a similar issue arose in view of an incorporation of the
similar clause by the Gwalior Municipal Corporation thereby only
limiting eligibility of the participating brands to certain international
brands. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the Supreme Court made categorical observations in
the order dated 04.02.2025, observing that it was wholly untenable
that such conditions can be incorporated, unless and until the
competent authority after following an objective analysis by an Expert
Team arrives at a well-reasoned, non-discriminatory and scientifically
supported conclusion that the other brands and the Indian brands are
not in a position to fulfill the requirement of the tender. This Court
also having perused the order passed by the Supreme Court dated
04.02.2025 finds it relevant to reproduce the paragraphs 8 to 12 of
the said order hereinunder:
"8. The short question, however, that survives for consideration is whether the
GMC's decision to restrict the bidding process to only 10 companies--and thereby
exclude all other potential bidders--can be justified in light of the precedent cited
above, and whether the High Court correctly applied the ratio decidendi of that decision.
9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, 3 and minutely perused the
record.
10. The legal principle that the terms of a public tender notice are not generally
Page No.# 4/6
open to judicial scrutiny and interference, unless found to be per se arbitrary--is well
known. It is trite law that judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual
powers by the Government, to the limited extent of preventing arbitrariness or
favouritism.1 Of course, what constitutes an arbitrary action is ultimately to be
answered in the facts and circumstances of any given case.
11. We have already set out the factual backdrop of these appeals hereinabove. It
appears to us that the assertion that an open tender would render the allotment
process cumbersome and time-consuming, or the claim that permitting bidders beyond
the designated 10 would result in the installation of inferior quality lifts, is seemingly
conjectural -- and a mere presumption based on surmises.
12. Admittedly, all 10 companies flagged by the GMC as eligible in the NIT are
multi-national corporations, and are all based outside India. This fact clearly indicates
that the GMC ostensibly believes that a company's status as a global entity ipso facto
confers on it the requisite repute and expertise necessary to undertake the specified
works. In our considered opinion, it is wholly untenable to argue that Indian
manufacturers (such as the present appellant) are inherently incapable of competing
with international products, or that any service tendered by them would be of an
inferior nature. We, in no uncertain terms, disapprove of such presumptive practices.
Save and except in a case where the competent authority, after following an objective
analysis by an expert team, arrives at a wellreasoned, non-discriminatory, and
scientifically supported conclusion. No such argument or supporting material was
submitted by the GMC before the High Court or before us. We further believe that there
are several other remedial measures which could have been taken by the GMC,
including the prescription of stricter standards and criterions in the NIT, to ensure that
there is no compromise with the quality or post-installation services."
7. From a perusal of the above judgment, it, therefore, prima facie,
appears that the Supreme Court had frowned upon the Gwalior
Municipal Corporation for excluding the Indian brands and only
including the international brands. The Supreme Court also observed
Page No.# 5/6
that the Gwalior Municipal Corporation ought to have acted in a more
transparent manner.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the respondents to
apprise this Court on the next returnable date as to whether there has
been any scientifically supported conclusions arrived at by a
competent authority by following an objective analysis by an Expert
Team that the brands mentioned in the bid document can only be
considered leaving aside brands like the petitioner or other brands.
9. Mr. B Hasurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submitted that 26.08.2025 is the last date for submission of the bids.
Taking into account the observations made by the Supreme Court in
the case of Omega Elevators (supra), this Court directs the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to extend the bid submission date to any
date on or after 30.08.2025.
10. In the meantime, the respondents shall be at liberty to reconsider
their stand, taking into account the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by
the Supreme Court. It is observed that if the respondents duly
reconsider, the same be intimated to all concerned.
11. List again on 26.08.2025 at 2.P.M
JUDGE
Page No.# 6/6
Comparing Assistant
