Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 26 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010064612025
2025:GAU-AS:3466
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1748/2025
KRISHNA DEY
S/O-LATE PRANAY CH. DEY, R/O-BARABASTI, PUBDHANIRAM PATHAR,
P.O- TELIBASTI, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-781005
2:THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
3:THE JOINT DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES
HOJAI
PAM GAON
HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782442
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HOJAI
DIST- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-78244
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI,
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HEALTH
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
ORDER
Date : 26.03.2025
Heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Health Department for the respondent Nos. 1,
2 and 3 and Mr. M. Chutia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner before this Court claims to have experience of providing the
dietary article services and food catering services for the past 5 (five) years. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the eligibility criteria in respect of Clause B (iv) (v) (vi)
and (vii) provided in the Bid Document vide No. GEM/2025/B/6061341 dated
17.03.2025 on the ground that the respondents are trying to apply the pick and
choose policy by allowing only those bidders who are well wishers of the
respondent authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is unable
to participate in the tender process as he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria of
Clause B (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) Accordingly, the present writ petition has been
filed challenging the bid document dated 17.03.2025, issued by the
respondents.
4. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Health Department submits that
the eligibility criteria provided in the bid document dated 17.03.2025,
particularly, in respect of Clause B (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) have been authored by
the respondent authorities and they are the best person to understand and
Page No.# 3/4
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents and therefore, this
Court need not interfere with the bid document inasmuch as, the petitioner has
failed to prove that the said has been done in a mala fide and perverse manner.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure
Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another
reported in (2016)16 SCC 818 has held as under:
"15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the
tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and
interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and
appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the
understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is
possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender
documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason
for interfering with the interpretation given."
6. Further, in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
Vs. M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala reported in (2020) 17 SCC 577 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Afcons Infrastructure Limited
(Supra) has held that the owner of the employer of a project having authored
the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents. The Court must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of tender documents unless there is mala fide
or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the
terms of the tender conditions. Further, the word used in the tender document
cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous and they must be
given meaning and their necessary significance.
Page No.# 4/4
7. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the eligibility
criteria is perverse or mala fide. The only case of the petitioner is that as he
does not fulfill the required eligibility criteria, he is unable to participate in the
tender. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for setting aside the
eligibility criteria, particularly, in respect of B (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) is rejected.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the writ
petition and is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
