Gauhati High Court
M/S Rahul Enterprise vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 14 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010209472025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/310/2025
M/S RAHUL ENTERPRISE
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL KUMAR BISEN, AGE BOUT 42 RS. S/O LT.
MAHESH KUMAR, R/O RAILWAY COLONY, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, P.O.
AND P.S. PANBAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN 781001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, ASSAM 781006
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI
ASSAM
GUWAHATI 781003
3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
CHANDMARI
ASSAM
GUWAHATI 781003
4:THE TENDER COMMITTEE
RIDF XXX (NABARD) FOR THE YEAR 2024-25
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
5:M/S PINAK ENTERPRISE
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY IS PROPRIETOR SMT. PINA MAJUMDAR
RADHA NAGAR
PATHARKUWARI
Page No.# 2/7
VIP ROAD
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI 781028
6:M/S KAMRUP ENTERPRISE
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MADHAB DEKA
ANANDA NAGAR
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI 781022
7:M/S JM AND NJA (JV)
A JOINT VENTURE
PRABATI BHAWAN
131 FA ROAD
KUMARPARA
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR, P KHATANIAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Linked Case : WP(C)/653/2025
M/S RAHUL ENTERPRSE
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL KUMAR BISEN
S/O LATE MAHESH KUMAR
R/O RAILWAY COLONY
PANBAZAR
P.O. AND PS. PANBAZAR
DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO
GUWAHATI-781001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
Page No.# 3/7
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
4:THE TENDER COMMITTEE
RIDF
XXX (NABARD)FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
5:M/S PINAK ENTERPRISE
A PROP. FIRM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT. PINA MAJUMDAR
RADHA NAGAR
PATHARKUWARI
VIP ROAD
KAMRUP METRO
GUWAHATI-28
6:M/S KAMRUP ENTERPRISE
A PROP. FIRM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MADHAB DEKA
ANANDA NAGAR
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
KAMRUP METRO
GUWAHATI-22
7:M/S JM AND NJA (JV)
A JOINT VENTURE
PRABATI BHAWAN
131, FA ROAD
KUMARPARA
KAMRUP (M)
Page No.# 4/7
GUWAHATI-01
------------
Advocate for : MR P H KONWAR
Advocate for : SC
IRRIGATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. P. Khataniar, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, SC, Irrigation
Mr. J. C. Gaur, Advocate
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
14.10.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Both the writ appeal and the writ petition have been taken up
together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
We have heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the
appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel,
Irrigation Department.
The appellant, who was the lowest bidder (L-1) in a tender process
initiated by the Irrigation Department for some renovation works under
Package No. 38, had preferred the above-captioned writ petition [WP(C)
653/2025)] questioning the decision of the respondents to split the
contract work amongst the appellant and three other bidders
(respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7) instead of awarding the entire package to
him at his quoted rate.
Page No.# 5/7
The grounds raised by the appellant is that the decision to split the
work and award the same to other bidders is arbitrary, lacks cogent
reasons and that splitting has not been done fairly. Though it was
admitted that Clause No. 29(iii) of the Tender documents ("Instructions to
Bidders") allowed splitting of the work, but it could have been done only
with some justification. The contention of the appellant therefore is that
the splitting order does not reflect any justification for splitting the work
and allotting the least share of the work to him.
The records reveal that the appellant had offered a bid which was
below 10% of the threshold, but the same was accepted and a
preliminary work order was issued to him on 24.01.2025.
The appellant contends that because of such unfair allocation of a
lesser portion of work, he had approached the court and he was in the
expectation of getting allotted the full contract work under the package.
The other grounds raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ
petition was that even the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) and the work
order were not communicated to him, about which he learnt from a third
party only on 30.01.2025.
Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner insists
that such LOA and work order were not even uploaded on the e-
procurement website of the respondents and precisely for this reason, he
could not deposit the Performance Security and the Additional
Performance Security within the stipulated time, which in this case was
February, 2025. He submits that there was an interim status quo order
passed in the writ petition giving an impression to the appellant that there
Page No.# 6/7
could be no deposit of the Performance Security or Additional
Performance Security during such status quo period.
Later on, as the records reveal, the interim order was vacated on the
ground that the status quo order was passed after the last date fixed for
deposit of the Performance Security and the Additional Performance
Security.
Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has
apprised this Court that as on date, two of the allottees of the work have
completed their shares of work, whereas the third allottee is about to
complete his share of work. He submits that because of the litigation and
because of the appellant not having deposited the Performance
Security and also having not started his share of the work in the right
earnest, the entire project was delayed for more than six months, forcing
the respondents to cancel the contract with the appellant.
Mr. Choudhury contends that the justification for allotting the
appellant/writ petitioner the least share or work is non-existent in the
allocation of work order and that he was never served with the LOA or
the work order, which actually prevented him from depositing the
Performance Security by the due date.
As on date, Mr. Choudhury submits, notwithstanding the cancellation
of his contract, he is ready to do his part of work on the same terms and
conditions if a decision to that effect is taken by the concerned
respondent.
Countering the argument of Mr. Choudhury, it is submitted by Mr.
Nayak that since the appellant's conduct has led to such inordinate
Page No.# 7/7
delay in completion of a public work project, there was a conscious
decision of the respondents to cancel the contract with the appellant
and the respondent/department is seriously contemplating of awarding
the contract to another concessionaire from the same bid.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any fault with the decision of
the respondents in splitting the work, which is permissible under the terms
and conditions of the "Instructions to Bidders"; but we direct that if, within
this time a decision has not already been taken to allot the appellant's
share of work to somebody else, then the claim of the appellant/writ
petitioner may be considered after obtaining an undertaking from him
that he shall complete the work under the same terms and conditions
and within the time that may be stipulated by the respondents. However,
such consideration shall be purely in the domain of the administrative
decision of the respondents.
With the afore-noted observations, both the writ appeal and the writ
petition are disposed off.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
