Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 608 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 16 May, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                              Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010079832025




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:6079

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

                       Case No. : WP(C)/2068/2025

         M/S TANOR ENGINEERING AND ANR
         A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
         P-SECTOR, ITANAGAR, P.O. AND P.S.- ITANAGAR, DIST- PAPUMPARE-
         791111, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.
         DILING TATAK

         2: DILING TATAK
          S/O TAGOM TATAK
          R/O P-SECTOR
          ITANAGAR P.O. AND P.S.- ITANAGAR
         DIST- PAPUMPARE-791111ARUNACHAL PRADES


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PWD (NH WORKS)
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM-781003

         3:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          PWD (NH WORKS)
         ASSAM
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-781003

         4:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
                                                                         Page No.# 2/18

            REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER
            PWD (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
            CHANDMARI
            GUWAHATI
            ASSAM-03

            5:SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
            A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
             PROPRIETOR- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
             S/O LT. BALRAM SINGH
             R/O CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
            TINSUKIA
             P.O. TINSUKIA
            ASSAM
             PIN-78612

                                       BEFORE
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA


Advocate for the petitioners   : Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr.Adv.,
                                 Mr. K. J. Saikia.
Advocate for the respondents   : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG,

Mr. B. D. Konwar, Sr.Counsel.

Date of hearing                : 01.05.2025.
Date of Judgment               : 16.05.2025.


                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. A.G. for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior counsel for the Caveator/respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his technical bid, in relation to the NIT dated 18.01.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, for Performance- Based Maintenance of Contract (PBMC) to NH-15 from km 381.000 (Gogamukh) Page No.# 3/18

to km 402.400 (Bhajugaon) and from km 403.900 (Jiadhal) to km 408.000 (Bharalichuk) and from km 412.000 (Children Park) to km 421.950 (Lalung Tiniali) and from km 432.250 (Sissiborgaon) to km 438.150 (Kulajan Tiniali) and of NH-515 from km 0.000 (Kulajan Tiniali) to km 0.650 (Akajan) (Total length = 42.000 Km) under PWD Dibrugarh NH Division, Dibrugarh in the State of Assam for the year 2024-2025 (Job No. 15/PBMC/AS/2024-25/277).

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's technical bid had been rejected on the following grounds:-

i. The bidder had shown documentary evidence of only one Air Compressor, against requirement of 2 Nos. of Air Compressor, as per the 'Request For Proposal' (RFP),

ii. The bidder has not shown one of his committed works in the existing commitment as per Clause 4.2 of the RFP. The bidder had become L1 for Job No. 15/AS/2023-24/249 on 24.12.2024 under PWD (NH Works), Assam, which was not shown in the existing commitment and

iii. The bidder was shown having one project in B-value of Annexure-VI, having contract value of more than 300 Crore, with a delay of more than 3 months from the scheduled completion period. However, the work was not shown in Annexure-VIII (Detail of Ongoing works). Thus, the bidder was declared technically non-responsive, as per Clause 4.1(j)(1) and 4.2 of the RFP and as per Appendix-1A, Page No.# 4/18

Annexure-VIII of the RFP.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the list of equipments required of a bidder, a bidder had to have two Air Compressors, as reflected in Section-2 of the Appendix to Instructions to Bidders (ITB) at Clause 1.1(A). The petitioner, on the other hand, had submitted a tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 for Rs.1,94,900/- issued by the Royal Industries, which described the goods as Royal Model R1 120 (Trolley Mounting Air Compressor Assy) "1 set". The quantity was shown to be "1 Set" and the Sale Certificate dated 20.10.2024 issued by the Royal Industries, showed that a Tractor Mounted Air Compressor had been delivered on 20.10.2024 to the petitioner. He submits that the respondents have erroneously arrived at a wrong finding that the petitioner documentarily showed only one compressor, without seeking clarification from the petitioner.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the tax invoice having clearly showed that 1 Set of Air Compressor, had been bought by the petitioner, the set included not only the Trolley mounted Air Compressor, but also the Tractor mounted Air Compressor. He thus submits that the petitioner had given proof of the fact that the petitioner had 2 Air Compressors for the contract work he had applied for. He submits that one M.K. Hatibaruah & Company had also submitted a tax invoice dated 02.11.2019 to the State respondents in respect of a similar work, wherein it showed that M.K. Hatibaruah & Company had 1 piece of Air Compressor Trolley Type (Compressor Machine Set). As the equipment of M.K. Hatibaruah and Company had been accepted by the authority, there was no reason to reject the petitioner's technical bid, on the ground that the Page No.# 5/18

petitioner did not have 2 Air Compressors. He accordingly submits that the rejection of the petitioner's representation, which had clarified the fact that the petitioner had the required 2 Air Compressors, was arbitrary and should be set aside.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the second ground for rejecting the petitioner's technical bid pertains to the petitioner not showing his committed work, in the format provided for all existing commitments and ongoing works, to be completed during the next one year and in terms of Clause 4.2 of the RFP. He submits that though the petitioner's bid was the lowest (L1) for Job No. 15/AS/2023-24/249 on 24.12.2024 under PWD (NH Works), Assam and though Clause 4.2 required winner of bids, but who had not been issued a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) by the authorities, to show the same in the format provided under Annexure-VI of Appendix 1-A, the petitioner had not done the same. The reason given by the petitioner for not giving details of the said tender was due to the fact that the petitioner did not receive any LoA or intimation from the Department regarding their L1 status. He thus submits that the rejection of the

petitioner's technical bid on the 2 nd ground is also arbitrary, in view of the reasons stated above.

7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the 3 rd reason given by the State respondents for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid is on the ground that the petitioner had not given information in Annexure-VIII, though he had given information in Annexure-VI, with regard to an uncompleted contract worth more than 300 crore, having a delay period of more than 3 months, from the scheduled completion period.

Page No.# 6/18

8. The petitioner's counsel submits that the said contract work pertains to the construction of 2-Lane road of Potin Pangin Section of NH-13 from km 163.50 to km 206.66 (Package No.5) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh under Arunachal Pradesh Package of Roads and Highways of SARDP-NE, at a total estimated amount of Rs.334.98 crore. The balance value of the work to be completed was 33.34 crore, inasmuch as, 301.64 crore work had been completed.

9. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was a Sub-Contractor for the above-said contract work, wherein the Principal Contractor was M/s Joint Stock Company Industrial Association "Vozrozhdenie". He submits that the petitioner's sub-contract work, worth 49% of the total estimated cost, had been completed by the petitioner on 30.11.2023 amounting to Rs. 164,14,18,631.00. He submits that the balance work of 33.34 crore had to be completed by the Principal Contractor and had nothing to do with the Sub-Contractor, who is the petitioner. He accordingly submits that as there was no liability on the part of the petitioner regarding the remaining part of the unfinished contract work, which had to be done by the Principal Contractor, the petitioner was not required to make a disclosure of the same in Annexure-VIII of the Appendix-1-A of the RFP. He accordingly submits that when there has been a justification for all the three reasons given by the respondents for disqualifying the petitioner's technical bid, the respondents could not have stuck to their decision to disqualify the petitioner's technical bid. He also submits that though the respondents had the option to clarify the issues with the petitioner, in terms of Clause 23.4 of the RFP, the State respondents had not sought to do the same.

10. The petitioner's counsel also submits that the petitioner's bid is less than Page No.# 7/18

the bid quoted by the respondent No. 5 by more than Rs.11 crores and as such, the writ petition has raised a question of public interest, inasmuch as, the acceptance of the petitioner's bid would result in a saving of Rs.11 crores by the Public Exchequer.

11. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. AG submits that the tax invoice submitted by the petitioner clearly indicated that there had been a supply of only 1 Set of Air Compressor at a cost of Rs.1,65,000/- excluding GST. Further, the cost breakup provided by the petitioner in the clarification dated 05.04.2025 was neither reflected in the tax invoice nor in the sale certificate. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the tax invoice comprised of 2 Air Compressors was not accepted. Moreover, the sale certificate mentioned only 1 Chassis number, clearly indicating the purchase of a single Air Compressor and not 2 Air Compressors.

12. Mr. Nayak further submits that the representation dated 05.04.2025 submitted in respect of the bidder M.K. Hatibaruah & CO. has been considered by the respondent No. 2 as a complaint against the tender of said 'M K Hatibaruah', only to affirm their decision of rejecting the technical bid of the writ petitioners on that ground.

13. Mr. Nayak also submits that the petitioner was informed of his L1 status for the work "Raising of NH-15 from Ch 402.400 km (Bhajugaon) to Ch 4.3.900 km (Jiadhal) (Total Lengh=1.500 km) along with 3 numbers of Box Culvert in the State under Annual Plan 2023-24 (EPC Job No. 15/AS/2023/24/249)", vide Office Letter No. NHR.49/2023/24 dated 24.12.2024 and was asked to submit Page No.# 8/18

justification for it's abnormally low quoted rate. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his justification on his low quoted rate, vide letter No. TE/Bhajugaon/2024-25 dated 02.01.2025. The due date for submission of bids for the work was 18.02.2025. Hence, the petitioner, who had received intimation of his L1 status for Job No. 15/AS/2023-24/249 earlier, was well aware of his L1 status at the time of submitting his bid.

14. Mr. Nayak submits that just because the petitioner has been asked to submit his justification for his abnormally low rate, the same did not mean that the petitioner was not the winner of the contract work, inasmuch as, the tenderers, who have submitted abnormally low rates, have been asked to do the contract work, after imposing additional performance security upon them for doing the contract work, depending upon the basis provided for the abnormally low rates.

15. With regard to the petitioner's technical bid being rejected on the 3 rd ground, Mr. Nayak submits that the petitioner had to show the details of the projects, which had a contract value of more than 300 crore and which had been delayed for more than 3 months from the scheduled completion date. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that he had completed his part of the contract work as a Sub-Contractor, i.e., 49% of the total contract work, in respect of the construction of a 2-Lane road of Potin Pangin Section of NH-13 from km 163.50 to 206.66 (Package No.5) in Arunachal Pradesh, there is nothing to show or prove that the petitioner had completed 49% of his portion of the contract work. Mr. Nayak submits that there is nothing to show that the remaining balance work to be completed amounting to Rs.33.34 crore, out of Page No.# 9/18

the total estimated amount of Rs. 334.98 crore, is the uncompleted work to be done by the Principal Contractor and as such, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to record the same in Annexure-VIII of the RFP.

16. Mr. Nayak submits that as the said issue had not been clarified by the petitioner at the time of submission of his bid documents, there is no infirmity with the State respondents holding that the petitioner had not completed his contract work within the stipulated completion date and as such, violated the terms and conditions of the RFP, by not disclosing the same in Appendix 1-A Annexure-VIII.

17. Mr. Nayak submits that no clarification was required to be made in respect of the grounds of rejection of the petitioner's technical bid under Clause 23.4, inasmuch as, the grounds were clear and did not require clarification. Further, the requirement for a clarification of a bid by an employer, is the personal discretion of the respondent authorities in terms of the said Clause. He further submits that in view of the petitioner, not having complied with the essential conditions of the tender, there was no infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid.

18. Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that it is settled law that the author of a tender is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret the terms and conditions of a tender. Mr. Konwar also referred to Clause 26 of the RFP, to show that there has been delayed consideration of the technical bids of the bidders, at the technical bid evaluation stage which could lead to escalation in the costs of the contract Page No.# 10/18

work and the findings of the State respondents with regard to questions of fact, should be accepted by this Court.

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

20. As is evident from the submissions of the parties and the pleadings, the petitioner's technical bid was rejected on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the petitioner's documents had shown that he had only one Air Compressor and not two. Secondly, as required in the RFP, the petitioner had not disclosed that he had become L1 for Job No.15/AS/2023/ 24/249 on 24.12.2024 in the existing commitment. Thirdly, the petitioner had not shown in Annexure-VIII, one project having contract value of more than 300 crores, the completion of which was delayed by more than 3 months from the scheduled completion period.

21. The tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner with his bid shows the supply of "1 set" of Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting). A perusal of the same nowhere indicates that 2 Air Compressors (Trolley Mounting), have been sold in terms of invoice dated 20.10.2024. As the bidders were required to have 2 Air Compressors for the contract work in question and as the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 did not show that the same was in respect to 2 Air Compressors (Trolley Mounting), the State respondents asked the petitioner to make a clarification with regard to the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 amongst other issues. The petitioner thereafter submitted his clarification stating that the petitioner had submitted tax invoice dated 20.10.2024, which stated that "1 set"

Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting), which meant that 2 Air Compressors had been sold by way of the said tax invoice and that in the Sale Certificate, there Page No.# 11/18

was a mention of Air Compressor Tractor Mounted. The petitioner has thus taken the stand that the words "1 set" mentioned in the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 referred to 2 Air Compressors, one Air Compressor being Tractor mounted and one being Trolley mounted. The cost of Air Compressor (Trolley mounting) was Rs.35,000/- and the Tractor mounted was Rs.1,30,000/-, thereby making the total cost for the 2 Air Compressors to be Rs.1,65,000/- excluding GST @18%. The State respondents in their letter dated 10.04.2025 thereafter made a reply to the clarification made by the petitioner as follows :

"1. Reply to clarification No. 1: The Tax invoice attached by you at TECH- II Page 29 shows 1(one) set of Air compressor for Total Cost of 1,65,000.00 excluding GST (18%). The Cost breakup mentioned by you in your clarification is neither mentioned in Tax Invoice nor Sale Certificate. Hence it cannot be considered as 2 nos of air compressors. Moreover, there is only one chassis number mentioned in the sale certificate, which clearly indicates that bidder has purchased only one air compressor. Hence it is considered as a lack of documentary evidence for 2(two) sets of Air Compressors."

22. On considering the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024, there is nothing to show that the tax invoice was in relation to the sale of 2 Air Compressors (Trolley mounting). In fact, the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 only speaks of "1 set" Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting). If the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 was in relation to 2 Air Compressors, then it would have been in relation to 2 Air Compressors (Trolley mounting). It could not have been in relation to 2 different types of Air Compressors. Further, the tax invoice has reflected only one amount as the sale price which is Rs.1,65,000/-, while the case of the petitioner is that the Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting) cost Rs.35,000/-, while Air Compressor Tractor Mounted cost Rs.1,30,000/-. The cost breakup provided in the clarification dated 05.04.2025 is also not reflected in the tax invoice. In fact Page No.# 12/18

the cost breakup provided in the sale certificate makes a mention of a Chassis Number only in respect of a Tractor Mounted Compressor. The use of the words "1 set" in the tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 does not, in any way indicate that 2 air compressors have been sold. Even if this Court assumes that "1 set" means 2 Air Compressors, then it should refer to 2 Air Compressors, both being Trolley Mounted. However, it could not have referred to two different types of Air Compressors. As such, this Court does not find any reason to dis-agree with the finding of the State respondents that the petitioner's tax invoice dated 20.10.2024 referred to only one Air Compressor (Trolley Mounting).

23. With regard to the issue of whether the petitioner should have shown that he was the winner for Job No.15/AS/2023/24/249 dated 24.12.2024, the relevant extract of Clause 4.2 is reproduced hereinbelow as follows:-

"B= Value (updated to the price level of the year indicated in table at Note-3 below) of existing commitments, works for which the bidder has emerged as the winner of the bids or on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the works for which BID is invited. For the sake of clarification, it is mentioned that works for which bidder has emerged as the winner of the bids but LOA has not been issued as on the day before opening the financial bids shall also be considered while calculating value of B.

Note:

1. The Statement showing the value of all existing commitments, works for which the contractor has emerged as the winner of the bid is given by bidder and ongoing works as well as the stipulated period of completion remaining for each of the works listed should be countersigned by the Client or its Engineer-

in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent in respect of EPC Projects or Concessionaire / Authorised Signatory of SPV in respect of BOT Projects and verified by Statutory Auditor."

Page No.# 13/18

24. The interpretation to Clause 4.2 of the FRP by the State respondents is to the effect that the petitioner has been informed of his L1 status in respect of another NIT, vide letter dated 24.12.2024, where he had been asked to submit justification for the petitioner's abnormally quoted low rates. The petitioner had also submitted his justification to the quoted low rates on 02.01.2025. The last date of submission of the bid in terms of the NIT dated 18.01.2025 was 18.02.2025 and hence, the petitioner having been informed that he was L1 earlier, clearly showed that he was accepted to be the winner with a condition, i.e., justification would have to be provided for the low rates quoted by the petitioner. The stand of the State respondents is not sustainable, due to the reason that the justification provided by the petitioner for his abnormally low rates, could either be accepted or not accepted by the State respondents. As there was no communication made by the State respondents that the petitioner's justification had been accepted prior to the opening of the financial bid, the petitioner could not be said to be the winner of the other NIT in terms of Clause 4.2 of the present NIT. It should also be understood that the requirement of being the winner in terms of Clause 4.2 of the bid document is different from that of being the lowest bidder (L1). Clause 4.2 does not speak of a bidder being L1, but only speaks of a winner of the bid, to whom Letter of Acceptance has not been issued on the day before opening the financial bid. A winner is declared without any conditions. In the present case, the State respondents have the power to reject the lowest bid in terms of Clause 29.1 and 30.1 of the bid document. The petitioner being declared the winner of the tender would depend upon the acceptance of the petitioner's justification by the State respondents and as such the petitioner cannot be said to be winner of the bid on the day before opening the financial bid. Clause 29.1 and 30.1 of the bid Page No.# 14/18

documents states as follows :

"29.1 Subject to Clause 31, the Employer will award the Contract to the Bidder whose Bid has been determined to be substantially responsive according to the bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated Bid price. The value of Bid Price shall be inclusive of amount of Emergency Works."

"30.1 Notwithstanding Clause 29, the Employer reserves the right to accept or reject any Bid, and to cancel the bidding process and reject all bids, at any time prior to the award of Contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or bidders of the grounds for the Employer's action."

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid on the basis of Clause 4.2 of the bid document is arbitrary and not justified. As such, the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid on the second ground fails.

25. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, the Supreme Court held that a mere difference in the prices offered by two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in a commercial transaction. It further held that it is important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed, thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money, by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into malafide, the court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers.

Page No.# 15/18

26. In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Supreme Court has held that there is a need for overwhelming public interest to justify intervention in contractual matters and that the Court should give way to the opinion of the experts, unless a decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. It further held that the Court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The Courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity.

27. In the case of N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127, the Supreme Court held that the satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. If the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee is not to the liking of the bidder, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract for a successful bidder. The Supreme Court further held that the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer, as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues, as there is a requirement of Page No.# 16/18

the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be, not to find fault with a magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is made after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender, but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion, rather than to injunct the execution of the contract.

28. With regard to the issue as to whether the petitioner should have shown in Annexure-VIII of the RFP, the more than 3 months delayed incomplete contract work, pertaining to the Rs.334.98 crores contract work allotted to M/s Joint Stock Company Industrial Association "Vozrozhdenie", who was the Principal Contractor and the petitioner, who was the sub-contractor of Vozrozhdenie, the petitioner's stand is that he had completed the sub-contract work delegated to him by the Principal Contractor. As the petitioner had completed his sub contract work worth 49% of the entire contract work, there being no delay in completion of his portion of the contract, the petitioner was not required to mention the said contract work, as an ongoing contract work, in Annexure-VIII.

29. The extract of Annexure-VIII of the RFP states as follows:-

"Appendix-IA Annexure-VIII Details of ongoing works S. No. Name of work Contract price Appointed Original scheduled Likely date of Reason for (INR Cr.) date completion date completion delay

Page No.# 17/18

(In the event that the Bidder had failed to achieve the Completion of any project within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the Schedule Completion Date of the project, unless such failure had occurred due to Force Majeure or for reasons solely attributable to the Authority, the Bidder shall be deemed to be ineligible for bidding this project (under bidding), both as the sole party or as one of the parties of Joint Venture/ Consortium, if any, during the period from Scheduled Completion Date to issuance of Completion Certificate for that project. This restriction is applicable if the contract value of the delayed project was not less than Rs. 300 Crore.)

"To be supported with valid certificate issued from Independent Engineer / Authority"s Engineer/Supervision Consultant/Engineer-in-charge

I/We certify that all the information furnished above is true in all respects.

.............................................Name of the Bidder

Signature of the authorized signatory:_________________

Name of the Authorised Signatory:___________________

Date:________________

Place:__________________"

30. The completion of the sub contract work by the petitioner has been certified by the concerned division, who has issued the completion certificate dated 04.12.2023. Further, in another writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, i.e. WP(C) 4089/2024, which was disposed of by order dated 08.11.2024, the completion of the sub-contract work of the petitioner in respect of the "C/o 2- Lane road of Potin-Pangin section of NH-13 from Km 163.500 to Km 206.660 (Package-5) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh under Arunachal Pradesh Package of Roads and Highways of SARDP-NE" was recorded. Keeping in view Page No.# 18/18

the fact that the contract work had been given to the Principal Contractor, i.e., "Vozrozhdenie" and the petitioner had completed his sub contract work, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not bound to submit details of the said uncompleted work of the Principal Contractor "Vozrozhdenie" in Annexure-VIII of the RFP. Further, Annexure-VIII only pertains to the contractor or the contractor as a part of the joint venture for consortium. Annexure-VIII does not include the sub-contract work done by a sub-contractor, which has been completed prior to

submission of the bid by the petitioner. As such, this Court is of the view that 3 rd ground taken by the State respondents for disqualifying the petitioner's technical bid is also arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside.

31. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the second and third ground for disqualifying the petitioner's bid are accordingly set aside and quashed.

32. Thus, due to the fact that this Court has found no reason to interfere with two out of the three reasons given by the respondents for disqualifying the petitioner's technical bid, this Court remands back the matter to State respondents, to take a decision as to whether the first ground for disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid, is enough to disqualify the petitioner's technical bid.

33. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant