Page No.# 1/17 vs The Assam Plain Tribes Development ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9743 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/17 vs The Assam Plain Tribes Development ... on 19 December, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010273182025




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:17782

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/7076/2025

         SRI DULU MANI RAJKHOWA
         S/O- LATE CHANDRA RAJKHOWA R/O.- HOUSE NO.31, HENGRABARI,
         NEAR FOREST GATE, PO- HENGRABARI, PS- DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP M,
         ASSAM, PIN-781036.



         VERSUS

         THE ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
         GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI-05 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
         DIRECTOR, APTDC LTD.

         2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
         ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
          GANESHGURI
          GUWAHATI781005.

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
         ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
          GANESHGURI
          GUWAHATI781005.

         4:SRI DILIP KUMAR BORA
          R/O - M.D. ROAD
          JANMUAY PATH
          NORTH HAIBORGAON
          P.O. P.S.- HAIBORGAON
          DIST.- NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-782002.

         5:M/S SHIV CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ARUP DEKA
                                                                             Page No.# 2/17

             SON OF SRI PADMA RAM DEKA
             R/O- MILANPUR
             KHETRI
             P.O.- TOPATOLI
             P.S.- KHETRI
             DIST. - KAMRUP M
             ASSAM
             PIN-782401.

            6:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
            ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI-19

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. L N DIHINGIA, MR. A K SAHU

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APTDC, MR. D GOGOI (R-4),SC, HIGHER EDU




             Linked Case : WP(C)/6542/2025

            DULU MANI RAJKHOWA
            S/O- LATE CHANDRA RAJKHOWA
            R/O.- HOUSE NO.31
            HENGRABARI
            NEAR FOREST GATE
            P.O- HENGRABARI
            P.S- DISPUR
            DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM
            PIN-781036.


             VERSUS

            THE ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS.
            GANESHGURI
            GUWAHATI-05
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
            APTDC LTD.

            2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
            ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
            GANESHGURI
                                                                   Page No.# 3/17

           GUWAHATI-781005

           3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
           ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
           GANESHGURI
           GUWAHATI-781005.

           4:DILIP KUMAR BORA
           R/O - M.D. ROAD
           JANMUAY PATH
           NORTH HAIBORGAON
           P.O. AND P.S.- HAIBORGAON
           DIST.- NAGAON
           ASSAM
           PIN-782002

           5:M/S SHIV CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
           REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ARUP DEKA
           SON OF SRI PADMA RAM DEKA
           R/O- MILANPUR
           KHETRI
           P.O.- TOPATOLI
           P.S.- KHETRI
           DIST. - KAMRUP (M)
           ASSAM
           PIN-782401.
           ------------

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. LN Dihingia In both the writ petitions

Advocates for the respondent(s): Mr. A Sarma, Standing Counsel APTDC Mr. D Gogoi for respondent No.4 Mr. K Gogoi for the respondent No.6

Page No.# 4/17

Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.12.2025

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. LN Dihingia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. A Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Assam Plains Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'the Corporation') and Mr. D Gogoi, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions and Mr. K Gogoi, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.7076/2025.

2. The writ petitioner in WP(C)No.6542/2025 is aggrieved by the rejection of his technical bid, and the petitioner thereupon filed WP(C)No.7076/2025 challenging the work order dated 14.10.2025.

Page No.# 5/17

3. Before proceeding, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that a re-tender in question was floated by the Corporation through an online mode. However, it is an admitted fact that till the filing of both the writ petitions, the work order dated 14.10.2025, which was issued in favour of the respondent No.4 was not uploaded in the e- portal.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now deal with the material facts which are relevant for the adjudication of the present proceedings.

The Corporation, through its Managing Director issued a Notice Inviting Re-Tender, inviting bids from the registered eligible contractors/firms registered under the Corporation for Upgradation and Renovation of the Building of Hostel No.03 of Nowgong Polytechnic, Nagaon under SOPD-ODS during the year 2023-24.

5. Note-1 of the detailed Notice Inviting Re-Tender (for short, 'the NIT') stipulates that the contractors/bidders must be registered with the E-tendering system provider for participating in the bidding process.

6. Note-2 stipulates that online submission of the technical & Page No.# 6/17

financial bid is mandatory and manual submission without online submission of the bid would be considered as non responsive.

7. The last date for submission of the bid was on 28.07.2025 and the date of opening of the technical bid was on 28.07.2025.

8. The petitioner along with various other bidders participated pursuant to the said NIT dated 23.05.2025. Amongst the four bidders, whose technical bids were considered, bids of two of the bidders including the petitioner were rejected, whereas the technical bids of respondent No.4 and another were found to be compliant.

9. The reasons for rejection of the bids of two of the bidders were noted in the comparative statement (technical bid). In the case of the petitioner, the reason was "IT Return and turnover not submitted for the last financial year 2024-25" and in the case of another bidder, whose technical bid was also rejected i.e. one Sri Lakhyajeet Chetia for the reason "IT Return not submitted for the last financial year 2024-25".

10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of the technical bid on the ground stated in the comparative statement had approached this Court.

Page No.# 7/17

11. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of filing the Returns for the financial year 2024-25, the last date for submission was on 31.10.2025 as per the Circular issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 25.09.2025. It is the further case of the petitioner that the last date for submission of the IT Return was extended to 10.12.2025 as would be seen from the Circular issued on 29.10.2025. The case of the petitioner, therefore, is that on the ground of non submission of the IT Return and turnover for the last financial year 2024-25, the petitioner's bid could not have been rejected, more particularly, when the last date for submission of the bid was 28.07.2025 and till then, the period for submission of the IT Return for the financial year 2024- 25 was not over.

12. When the writ petition was listed before this Court on 19.11.2025, it was submitted by Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that in the meantime, the work order has already been issued in favour of the respondent No.4 on 14.10.2025 and the respondent No.4 has already submitted the Performance Security. Under such circumstances, without the challenge to the work order dated 14.10.2025, this Court was of the opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to pass any interim directions. However, this Page No.# 8/17

Court made it very clear that the award of the work to the respondent No.4 shall be subject to the outcome of the present writ proceedings and the respondent No.4 shall not be permitted to claim any equity on the basis that this Court did not pass any interim directions on that day.

13. The record reveals that the respondent Corporation had filed a preliminary affidavit on 10.12.2025. In the said affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the respondent Corporation, the notice to proceed with the work dated 14.10.2025 was enclosed and certain photographs have also been enclosed that the respondent No.4 had already started the work.

14. It is very pertinent herein now to take note of the stand of the respondent Corporation in the affidavit, wherein it was stated that the reason for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was on account of non-compliance to Clause 4.3(vi) and Clause 4.3(xiii) by the petitioner.

15. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Clause 4.3(vi) and Clause 4.3(xiii), which being relevant are quoted hereinunder:

"4.3(vi): Audited reports on the financial standing of the Bidder, Page No.# 9/17

such as profit and loss statements and auditor's reports for the past five years.

4.3(xiii): Income Tax Returned of last five years."

16. A perusal of the above-quoted clauses reveal that the bidders are required to submit the audited reports on the financial standing of the bidder, such as, profit and loss statements and auditor's reports for the past five years and further the bidders were also required to enclose the income tax returns of the last five years. There was no mention, however, as to what the last five years would mean in the NIT.

17. The petitioner, in the meantime, being aggrieved by the issuance of the work order dated 14.10.2025 filed the second writ petition being WP(C)No.7076/2025 wherein the work order dated 14.10.2025 was challenged.

18. This Court issued notice on 12.12.2025. On the said date, it was submitted by Mr. A. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the affidavit so filed in WP(C)No.6542/2025 would suffice for the purpose of the writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C)No.7076/2025.

Page No.# 10/17

19. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another pertinent aspect. When both the writ petitions were taken up on 12.12.2025, this Court taking into account the contents of the comparative statement and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2025 SCC Online 2536 enquired with the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation as to whether there were contemporaneous materials such as minutes of the meeting recorded by the Tender Evaluating Committee mentioning on account of non compliance to Clause 4.3(vi) and Clause 4.3(xiii) of the tender conditions, the petitioner's technical bid was rejected. Accordingly this Court fixed the matter on 17.12.2025 for further consideration.

20. On 17.12.2025, when the writ petitions were taken up, Mr. A. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation had placed before this Court a communication issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The contents of the said communication being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:

"OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM PLAINS TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 5 Email ID: [email protected] Page No.# 11/17

Website: www.aptdcl.com No. PTDC/Engg/2024-25/376 Dated 15th December, 2025

From: The Managing Director,

Assam Plains Tribes Development Corporation Ltd.,

Ganeshguri, Ghy-05.

To: Shri Angshuman Sarma, Standing Counsel, APTDCL

Subject: Submission of report in respect of WP(C) No.6542/2025

(Shri Dulumoni Rajkhowa-vs-APTDCL & Ors)

Sir,

With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that the bid submitted by Shri Dulumoni Rajkhowa was rejected due to non-submission of IT Return and Turn Over for the last Financial Year 2024-25. Further, it is to be stated that as per Clause 4.3(vi) of the ITB, bidder has to submit Audited reports on the financial standing of the Bidder, such as profit and loss statements and auditor's reports for the past five years. But the bidder has submitted audited reports only for the financial year 2022-23 i.e. only for one year. Hence, his bid has been rejected. Minutes for the above was not prepared and evaluation of Financial Bid was done based on the Comparative Statement of the Technical Bid.

Yours faithfully

(Hemanta Pegu, ACS) Managing Director APTDCL"

21. The said communication being pertinent is kept on record and marked with the letter 'X'.

Page No.# 12/17

22. From a perusal of the said communication, it is seen that the respondents Corporation had not maintained any contemporary records or minutes of the meeting which would show that on account of non-compliance to Clause 4.3(vi) and Clause 4.3(xiii) of the tender conditions, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected.

23. In the backdrop of the above facts, this Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION:

24. The present writ petitions are filed challenging the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid and the consequential issuance of the work order dated 14.10.2025. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court had reproduced the reason why the petitioner's bid was rejected. The said reason so mentioned has no semblance of any connection with non compliance with Clause 4.3(vi) and Clause 4.3(xiii) of the Bid Document, inasmuch as the said reason was specific to non submission of the Income Tax Return as well as the Turnover for the financial year 2024-25. In addition to that, the submission of the Income Tax Return for the financial year 2024-25 was never mentioned as a requisite for technical eligibility. What was mentioned was the last five years Income Tax Returns. At this stage, Page No.# 13/17

it is pertinent to mention that the last date for submission of the bid was on 28.07.2025. Under such circumstances, it cannot also be conceived that the authorities sought for the IT Return for the financial year 2024-25 when the last date for filing such returns for the financial year 2024-25 was initially extended upto 31.10.2025 and subsequently to 10.12.2025. It is also pertinent to observe that without the extension so granted, the last date for filing the IT Returns for financial year 2024-25 was 30.09.2025, much after the last date for submission of bid. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that if the respondent authorities have sought for the IT Returns for the financial year 2024-25 as on 28.07.2025, it would be depriving those bidders whose IT Returns could be filed later without any reasonable classification.

25. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt (supra). Paragraph Nos.26 to 28 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:

"26. Turning then to the factual record, the Cancellation Letter at first blush appears to be laconic; as it does not list the grounds that weighed upon the Department while issuing the same.

27. That being said, it is equally true that this Court has consistently held that administrative orders must be read in light of the concomitant record, and that reasons need not be stated in haec verba in the communication, so long as they can be Page No.# 14/17

discerned from the file and are not post-hoc justifications.

28. This Court has, however, cautioned against the practice of post-facto rationalisation, whereby authorities attempt to supplement or fabricate reasons after the decision has already been taken. Such afterthoughts cannot cure an inherently arbitrary action. The legitimacy of administrative reasoning must be tested with reference to the material that existed at the time the decision was made, not by subsequent embellishment. To simplify: what is permissible is elucidation of contemporaneous reasoning already traceable on record; what is impermissible is the invention of fresh grounds to retrospectively justify an otherwise unreasoned order."

26. The law settled by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted paragraphs make it clear that the reasons need not be stated in haec verba in the communication, so long they can be discerned from the file and are not post-hoc justifications. The Supreme Court made it very clear that the practice of post-facto rationalization, whereby the authorities attempt to supplement or fabricate reasons after the decision has been taken cannot be accepted inasmuch as such afterthoughts cannot cure an inherently arbitrary action.

27. In the instant case, as noted above, the reason which was cited for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in the Comparative Statement cannot be a reason as permitted under the terms and conditions of the tender, in view of the fact that there was no necessity of filing the Income Tax Returns for the financial year 2024- 25 till 10.12.2025, and there was further no mention in the terms and Page No.# 15/17

conditions of the tender requiring the filing of the Income Tax Return up to the financial year 2024-25. The reasons which are now being submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, based on the affidavit so filed by the respondent Corporation, appears to be a classic case of post facto rationalization, thereby trying to supplement or fabricate reasons after the decision has already been taken. In this regard, this Court finds it profitable to refer to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Election Commission of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, and, more particularly, to paragraph No. 8 which is produced hereinunder:

"8.The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:

"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

Page No.# 16/17

28. Under such circumstances, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was a case of malice in law, arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.

29. This Court now finds it also pertinent to take note of the submission of Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel, who represents the respondent No.4 to the effect that the respondent Corporation have duly admitted that the respondent No.4 had carried out various works. This Court would not like to comment on the same, taking into account that while passing the order on 19.11.2025, it was made clear that not granting any interim direction would not create any equitable interest in favour of the respondent No.4 and the work order would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

30. At this stage, this Court also finds it very apposite to observe that it is also an admitted case of the respondent Corporation that till the date on which both the writ petitions were filed, the work order dated 14.10.2025 was not uploaded in the e-Portal, which was a necessity to do so as per the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 and the Rules framed thereinunder.

31. Consequently, this Court, therefore, disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

Page No.# 17/17

(i). The rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by the respondent Corporation vide the Comparative Statement dated 08.10.2025 is bad in law and, accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed.

(ii). As the evaluation of the technical bid is being set aside, the consequential work order dated 14.10.2025 so issued in favour of the respondent No.4 cannot also stand the scrutiny of law, for which, the same is also set aside and quashed.

(iii).The respondent Corporation is directed to afresh evaluate the technical bids of all the bidders, who have submitted the bids and thereupon proceed with the evaluation of the tender in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT

(iv). The setting aside of the work order dated 14.10.2025, however, shall not preclude the respondent No.4 to make claims against the respondent Corporation, if so permissible under law.

(v). It is categorically made clear that while evaluating the technical bids of the 4 (four) bidders, the respondent Corporation shall not permit any of the bidders to submit any further documents.

JUDGE

Shivani Gautam Gautam Date: 2025.12.20 15:52:55 +05'30'

Comparing Assistant