Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 667 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 2 June, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                               Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010087282025




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:7125

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/2183/2025

         M/S TANOR ENGINEERING AND ANR
         A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P
         SECTOR ITANAGAR, PO AND PS ITANAGAR, DISTRICT PAPUMPARE,
         ARUNACHAL PRADESH 791111 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR DILING
         TATAK I.E THE PETITIONER NO 2

         2: DILING TATAK
          S/O TAGOM TATAK R/O P SECTOR ITANAGAR
          PO AND PS ITANAGAR
          DISTRICT PAPUMPARE
         ARUNACHAL PRADESH 79111

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
         OF ASSAM, PWD, ASSAM

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER CUM CHAIRMAN
          PWD
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI 3 ASSAM

         3:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
         THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD
         NH WORKS ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI 3

         4:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
          REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER
                                                                            Page No.# 2/5

            NATIONAL HIGHWAY PWD
            CHANDMARI
            GUWAHATI 3
            ASSAM

            5:T TACHU AND CO
             REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
             MUOLHOI
             DIMA HASAO
             HAFLONG
             NORTH CACHAR
             REGISTERED OFFICE AT LOWER BAYAVU HILL KOHIMA 79700

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MR. R K MAHANTA,MR K J SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MS S JAIN,MR H AGARWAL,MR J SINGH,MR. B D
KONWAR SR. ADV.,FOR CAVEATOR




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 02-06-2025

Heard Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents.

2. Pursuant to NIT dated 03.01.2025 for "Improvement of NH -329 by BC layer along with balance work of the Diphu-Manja- Lumding portion of the foreclosed project 2 laning of Lumding Diphu Manja Road, Haflong Jatinga Road, Baksa Barama Road, Marigaon Jagiroad, Kokrajhar Karigaon Road and Udalguri Rowta Road in the state of Assam (Length=146 Km) under SARDP-NE, Phase- A (Job No.SARDP-NE/6 Road Package/AS/PWD/2010-11-168) for the year 2024-25 under Bakulia NH Division in the state of Assam (Job No. 329/AS/2024-25/270)", for an estimated amount of Rs.69.42 Crore, the Page No.# 3/5

petitioner along with others submitted their respective bids. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 09.04.2025, disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not shown one of his ongoing works in the Annexure - VI (existing commitment "B"). Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.04.2025 before the respondent No. 2, which was rejected on 17.04.2025. Thereafter, the Financial Bids of the other bidders were opened on the same date i.e. 17.04.2025.

3. Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was given Letter of Acceptance (LOA) in respect of another contract work "Raising of NH-15 from Ch 402.400 km (Bhajugaon) to Ch 403.900 km (Jiadhal) (Total Length=1.500 km) along with providing with 3 (three) nos of Box Culvert in the State of Assam under Annual Plan 2023-34. (EPC Job No. 15/AS/2023/24/249)", on 21.02.2025. However, the petitioner had submitted his bid on 10.02.2025, which was the last date for submission of bids for the present contract work in terms of the NIT dated 03.01.2025. As such, the petitioner's technical bid could not be disqualified in terms of Clause 2.2.2.1 of the tender conditions. He further submits that this Court had disposed of a similar case, i.e., WP(C) 2068/2025 and as such, the present writ petition should also be disposed of in line with the judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 2068/2025.

4. The petitioners' counsel also submits that he has been informed of the rates/bids given by the other tenderers and that the financial bid of the petitioner is L5, when compared to the financial bids of other tenderers.

5. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Page No.# 4/5

respondents submits that as the petitioner's bid is L5, the entire exercise of looking into the legality of the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid would only be of academic interest, even if the petitioner's writ petition succeeds. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be closed and if the bid is not going to be given to the bidders, who are L1 to L4, the case of the petitioner can then be reconsidered afresh, prior to taking a decision for awarding the contract work to a bidder whose bid is higher than the petitioner's.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The basis for disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid has been laid down in Clause 2.2.2.1 of sub-clause B of the tender document. A reading of the above would go to show that the winner of a bid where LOA has not been issued, as on the day before opening of the financial bid, has to give their status of being a winner in respect of some other tender notice in Annexure-VI of Appendix-IA.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to inform this Court, as to when he became a winner, inasmuch as, though the petitioner was L1 in another tender notice, he was asked to submit a justification for his abnormally low rates. Further, he came to know he was the winner in relation to Clause 2.2.2.1 of sub-clause B only after the bid was submitted by the petitioner.

9. Without going further into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that as the petitioner's financial bid was L5, as has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel, the question of deciding whether the petitioner's technical bid was validly disqualified would only be of academic interest as on date. As Page No.# 5/5

such, this Court is of the view that the writ petition should be closed at this stage.

10. Accordingly, unless the respondents are deciding to award the contract to a tenderer, who has submitted financial bid higher than the petitioner, the contract work to be awarded to the bidders, whose bids are lower to the petitioner should not be disturbed, unless the same is in violation of the Rules or the tender documents.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. However, if the financial bids of tenderers, whose rates are higher than the petitioner, is to be awarded the contract, the respondents shall not take any action without giving prior personal hearing to the petitioner.

12. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

13. Interim order passed earlier is hereby vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant