Maa Bagala Amusement Hub vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 8 December, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010271802025




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/7002/2025

         MAA BAGALA AMUSEMENT HUB
         PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SANJIB
         DEKA, SON OF SHRI JADAV CHANDRA DEKA, RESIDENT OF 28, M A,
         MADHABDEVPUR, OPPOSITE SHIV MANDIR, REHABARI, GUWAHATI,
         DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781008.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECERTARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
         AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:SILCHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
          CACHAR
          SILCHAR
          REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
          SILCHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
          CACHAR
          SILCHAR.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER
          SILCHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
          CACHAR
          SILCHAR.

         4:THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
          IN RESPECT OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER (NIT) E-TENDER BEARING
         NO. SMGR (NCAP) 12/2025-26/3442 DATED- 06-11-2025
          REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON
         TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
          SILCHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                                        Page No.# 2/7

CACHAR
SILCHAR.

5:JADOB ELECTRIC CO.

A PROPRIETORIAL CONCERN OF SHRI JADU PROSAD JADOB
SON OF JIBU PROSAD JADOB
104A
ACHARYA PRAFULLA CHANDRA ROAD
KOLKATA-700009
WEST BENGAL.

6:M/S UNIQUE REFRACTORIES AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
A PROPRIETORIAL CONERN OF SRI SHEKHAR CHANDRA BERA
 SON OF SRI KANAI LAL BERA
 KRISHNAPUR
 DEYPARA
 P.O. GARALGACHA
 P.S. CHANDITALA
 DIST. HOOGLY
WEST BENGAL
 PIN- 712311.

7:M/S UNITECH REFRACTORIES AND ENGINEERING CO.

A PROPRIETORIAL CONCERN OF MADHUMITA BERA TARAFDER
D/O- BASANTA KUMAR TARAFDER
RESIDENT OF MONORANJAN APARTMENT
GARALGACHA
BENARAS ROAD
HOOGLY
WEST BENGAL
PIN- 712311.

8:M/S D. D. METAL CORPORATION
A PROPRIETORIAL CONCERN OF SRI NIHAR DHAR
 RESIDENT OF LABANYA ENCLAVE
 ULUBARI
 OPPOSITE ARYA HOSPITAL
 P.S. PALTANBAZAR
 GUWAHATI
 DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
 PIN- 781007
                                                                      Page No.# 3/7

                                  BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


Advocates for the petitioner(s)   :    Mr. S Banik


Advocates for the respondent(s) :          Mr. A Biswas

Standing Counsel Silchar Municipal Corporation Mr. K Gogoi for respondent No.1

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 08.12.2025

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. S Banik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K Gogoi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. A Biswas, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the notice upon the respondent Nos.5 to 8.

3. The petitioner herein had approached this Court challenging the technical disqualification of the petitioner by the respondent authorities in its meeting Page No.# 4/7

held on 29.11.2025 and further questioned the qualification of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the tender process which was initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.11.2025.

4. The materials on record reveal that the respondent Silchar Municipal Corporation had issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.11.2025 for inviting bids from eligible bidders for drawing, designing, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Twin Electric Furnace with Pollution Control Unit and 30 Mtr. height Chimney including 15 days trial run and 1 year(Twelve Month) Operation for cremation of human dead bodies at Silchar Burning ground under the Silchar Municipal Corporation under (NCAP) 2024-2025.

5. The petitioner along with various other bidders duly participated in pursuance to the said Notice Inviting Tender. It is pertinent to mention that the bids sought for were of two stages: one is the technical bid and the other is the financial bid.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's bid was rejected, on 29.11.2025 on the ground of electrical license submitted of DD Metal Corporation. On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were held to be qualified for the financial bid.

7. It is further pertinent to take note of that pursuant to the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, the earnest money deposit which the petitioner submitted in pursuance to Clause 4.0

of the bid document was refunded to the petitioner on 30.11.2025.

8. Being aggrieved by disqualification of the petitioner in its technical bid and the qualification of the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 for evaluation of the financial bid, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition on Page No.# 5/7

05.12.2025.

9. It is very relevant to take note of that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, a decision was taken by the Silchar Municipal Corporation for administrative reasons to revoke the technical evaluation and to again evaluate the technical bid. In that regard a Corrigendum was issued on 05.12.2025 itself and due intimations were given to all concerned in the e-portal of the Assam Tenders on 06.12.2025.

10. Mr. S Banik, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondent authorities are again going to re-evaluate the technical bid, the petitioner's bid also is required to be re- evaluated, inasmuch as, the evaluation which was done by which the petitioner's technical bid was rejected had become non est. The learned counsel further submitted that Clause 4.0 of the bid document, the petitioner's earnest money deposit having already been refunded, directions be issued upon the respondent authorities to consider the technical bid of the petitioner without the earnest money deposit on an undertaking given by the petitioner to submit the earnest money deposit within a couple of days.

11. Mr. A Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Silchar Municipal Corporation submitted that the instant writ petition has already become infructuous taking into account that the decision dated 29.11.2025 by which the petitioner's technical bid was rejected had already been withdrawn. The learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submitted that it is the mandate of Clause 4.0 of the bid document that the earnest money deposit has to be a part of the bid document to be submitted. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner's earnest money deposit was refunded on 30.11.2025, the petitioner can very well submit a fresh demand draft of the said Page No.# 6/7

amount as mentioned in Clause 4.0 of the bid document.

12. It is relevant to take note of that during the hearing of the instant proceedings, Mr. S Banik, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court the revocation Corrigendum, as well as the various details pertaining to the changes made in the portal pertaining to the Tender in question. These documents are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter 'X'.

13. During the course of the hearing, Mr. S Banik, the learned counsel had also placed before this Court the intimation given by the respondent Silchar Municipal Corporation as to the reason for holding that the petitioner's bid was technically not competent as well as also placed the Certificate issued by the State bank of India, wherein it is seen that the amount of Rs.6,99,868/- which was the EMD amount was refunded by the respondent Silchar Municipal Corporation. These two documents are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter 'Y'.

14. From the above developments which took place, it, therefore, appears that the respondent Silchar Municipal Corporation had withdrawn the evaluation of the technical bids which were carried out on 29.11.2025. Further to that, it is also seen from the documents kept on record and marked with the letter 'X' that there is a Notification dated 06.12.2025 in the portal, wherein it is mentioned that the Tender in question would be now at the stage of technical opening.

15. Considering the above, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner's bid has not yet been evaluated. It is also relevant to take note of that in the meantime the petitioner who had duly submitted the earnest money deposit of an amount of Rs.6,99,868/- has been refunded back to the petitioner on Page No.# 7/7

30.11.2025. In view of the refunding of the earnest money deposit on the basis of rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, which no longer exists, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner should be granted an additional opportunity for submitting the EMD to the tune of Rs.6,99,868/-. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

(i). The petitioner's technical bid be again considered along with other bids so submitted by the bidders subject to the petitioner submitting a demand draft from a Nationalized Bank of an amount of Rs.6,99,868/- by 12 P.M. on 09.12.2025.

(ii). This Court has not decided anything as regards the technical competence of the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7, though there is a specific challenge, taking into account that the respondent authority would again re-evaluate as per its revocation Corrigendum as well as the intimation dated 06.12.2025 notified in the e-Portal of the Assam Tenders.

(iii). It is observed that in the circumstance, the technical evaluation is being carried out holding the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 to be technically qualified, the present order shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner in again approaching this Court.

16. Mr. A Biswas, the learned counsel, who represents the Silchar Municipal Corporation shall intimate his clients about the present order forthwith.

17. The Registry shall provide a copy of this order to Mr. A Biswas the learned Standing Counsel, Silchar Municipal Corporation during the course of the day.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant