Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The Assam University And 2 Ors on 3 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010186592024
2025:GAU-AS:14914
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4667/2024
KISHORE KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE AND 2 ORS
SON OF LATE KETAKI RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE,
RESIDENT OF MALUGRAM,
MELA ROAD, SILCHAR- 788002,
DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM.
2: SAUMITRA SANKAR DUTT
SON OF LATE SUBODH CHANDRA DUTT
HOUSE NO. 142C
TRINAYANEE
NAG NAHA LANE
SILCHAR- 788004.
3: NITU COUDHURY
SON OF LATE NABENDU CHOUDHURY
RESIDENT OF CLUB ROAD
SILCHAR- 788001
VERSUS
THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
DORGOKONA, SILCHAR,
DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM,
PIN- 788011.
2:THE REGISTRAR
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
DORGOKONA
SILCHAR
Page No.# 2/4
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788011.
3:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI- 110001
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 03.11.2025
Heard Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Standing counsel appearing
on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. The Petitioner herein has assailed the terms and conditions of the
Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.08.2024 bearing Bid
No.GEM/2024/B/5290330.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that by the said Notice Inviting
Tender, the Respondent Authorities have incorporated certain terms
which are restrictive. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted
that in terms with Clause 1, the Respondent Authorities have permitted
Page No.# 3/4
only those bidders who have experienced for number of years of
providing similar types of service to any Central Government/State
Government/PSUs and have also sought for relevant contracts/orders to
be uploaded along with bid in support of having provided services during
each of the financial year. The learned counsel submits that this
particular Clause is restrictive.
4. In the opinion of this Court, the said submission is completely
misconceived inasmuch as the Tendering Authority has the right to
incorporate terms and conditions and to invite bids only from those
persons who are experienced. Under such circumstances, the submission
as regards the Clause No.1 of the Bid Document is misconceived.
5. As regards Clause No.3, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioners further submitted that the said Clause No.3 is contrary to
Clause No.1 inasmuch as, it is stipulated in Clause No.3 that the
estimated bid value indicated is being declared solely for the purpose of
guidance of the EMD amount and for determining the eligibility criteria
relating to Turn Over, Past Performance and Project/Past Experience etc.
In the opinion of this Court, there appears to be nothing contradictory
between Clause No.1 and Clause No.3 on the face of it.
6. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that no case
has been made out by the Petitioners for interference with the said
Tender Document.
7. This Court also finds it pertinent at this stage to refer to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure
Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in
Page No.# 4/4
(2016) 16 SCC 818 more particularly paragraph No.15 wherein the
Supreme Court had categorically observed that the Tendering Authority
being the author of the document has the liberty to incorporate such
terms and conditions as the said Tendering Authority feels for getting the
best procurement services.
8. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands
dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
