Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7374 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 17 September, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010072912025




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:12829

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

                       Case No. : WP(C)/1976/2025

         M/S MONSOON ENTERPRISE AND ANR
         A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
         503, BINA ENCLAVE SURVEY, BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781028, DIST KAMRUP
         (M) ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER SRI RABIJEET
         PHUKAN

         2: RABIJEET PHUKAN
          S/O LATE TIKENDRAJIT PHUKAN
          R/O 108J
          PALM GOVE ENCLAVE
          JURIPAR
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-22
          KAMRUP (M)
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

         2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         3:THA ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          DHAKUAKHANA
         ASSAM

         4:THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE
          DHAKUAKHANA
         ASSAM
                                                                     Page No.# 2/8


          5:AMBA BANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED
           C/O THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
           DHAKUAKHANA
          ASSA

For the petitioner       : Mr. S. Bora, Advocate
For the respondents      : Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate
                          Dr. A. Todi, Advocate

                                   BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
                         Date of Hearing          : 17.09.2025

                         Date of Judgment : 17.09.2025
                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Dr. A. Todi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in disqualifying the petitioner in its technical bid in respect to a tender for the supply of goods for interior furnishing works of Dhakuakhana Circuit House.

3. The materials on record show that an E-Tender was floated under the aegis of the GeM bearing bid document No.GEM/2025/B/5927802 dated 10.02.2025 for supplying of various goods in connection with the interior furnishing works of the Dhakuakhana Circuit House. The item categories were duly mentioned in the said bid document. It further Page No.# 3/8

appears that the last date for submission of the bid was on 04.03.2025 at 1300 hours and the bid opening date was on 04.03.2025 at 1330 hours.

4. Taking into account the dispute which has been raised, it is pertinent to take note of that in the said bid document it was categorically mentioned in the Column "Start up exemption for years of experience and turnover-No". It is further seen that by the said bid document, it was also mentioned that there would be an EMD exemption for a bidder subject to submitting valid supporting documents for the relevant category as per the GeM GTC with the bid. It was further mentioned that in respect to the MSE category, only manufacturers of goods and service providers for services are eligible for exemption from the EMD. The petitioner herein was admittedly not a manufacturer of the goods to be supplied. Clause 5 of the said bid document, being relevant, is reproduced herein under:-

"5. Past Performance: The Bidder or its OEM {themselves or through re-

seller(s)} should have supplied same or Similar Category Products for 80% of bid quantity, in at least one of the last three Financial years before the bid opening date to any Central / State Govt Organization / PSU. Copies of relevant contracts (proving supply of cumulative order quantity in any one financial year) to be submitted along with bid in support of quantity supplied in the relevant Financial year. In case of bunch bids, the category related to primary product having highest bid value should meet this criterion."

5. A perusal of the said Clause 5 would show that the bidder or its OEM (themselves or through re-sellers) should have supplied the same Page No.# 4/8

or similar category products for 80% of the bid quantity at least one of the last three financial years before the bid opening date to any Central/State Govt Organization/PSU. It was further categorically mentioned in the said bid document that copies of the relevant contracts (proving supply of cumulative order quantity in any one financial year) has to be submitted along with the bid in support of the quantity supplied in the relevant financial year.

6. It is further relevant to take note of that along with the said bid document, there are additional terms and conditions. The relevant term in that category pertains to the Qualification Criteria which is Clause 1. Clause 1.1 which deals with the issue involved in the present proceedings, being relevant, is reproduced herein under:-

1.1 Required Minimum Experience & Criteria

(i) The Bidder (if not the manufacturer of the goods offered) should have experience of supplying goods of similar in nature it is bidding for, to different government departments/undertaking /entities of quantity as specified below during last three financial years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

S.No Name of the Brief Description of the Minimum Quantity of supply Goods Goods required during last three financial years.

(ii) Should have experience of similar nature of work of at least 50% of the value of Page No.# 5/8

tender in a single contract/ work order (proof to be submitted)"

7. From a perusal of the above quoted clause, it would be seen that the bidder if it is not the manufacturer of the goods offered also is required to have experience of supplying goods of similar nature to different government departments/undertaking /entities of quantity as specified in the last three financial years, i.e. 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. It further stipulates in terms of the said Clause that the bidder should have experience of similar nature of work of at least 50% of the value of the tender in a single contract/work order. Further to that, it has also been mentioned that a proof of the same has to be submitted.

8. Before proceeding further, it is very pertinent to take note of that the estimated bid value as per the bid document is Rs.2,53,83,500/-.

9. The records reveal that the petitioner duly submitted the bid. Annexure-VI is the bidders checklist. It is however relevant to take note of that the bidders checklist does not mention as regards document submitted in respect to the petitioner's OEMs qualifications.

10. During the course of the hearing, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed before this Court the Minutes of the Meeting of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. The said Minutes of the Meeting is kept on record and marked with the letter "X". A copy of the said Minutes of the Meeting has also been furnished to Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner so that he could also peruse the contents thereof.

Page No.# 6/8

11. A perusal of the said Minutes of the Meeting would show that there were 10 numbers of bidders who had submitted the online bid under the two bids system, technical and financial. Out of the ten, nine were not eligible and only the respondent No.5 was found to be technically responsive. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioners' bid was rejected on the grounds of there being no single work completion certificate of the bidder having been submitted amounting to Rs.1.26 crores as per Point No.5 of Sub-Clause 1.1 under Clause 1 of the Additional Terms and Conditions.

12. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of that on 19.03.2025, the petitioner was duly intimated that the petitioner was disqualified taking into account that he failed in demonstration which was mandatory as per the bid condition. Further to that, the comments were also mentioned that there was no single work completion certificate submitted amounting to Rs.1.26 crores. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the document enclosed as Annexure-IX by the petitioner. A perusal of the said document shows that the petitioner herein had also accepted that he had overlooked Clause 5 of the bid document, and as such, on 26.03.2025, the petitioner uploaded the completion certificate issued in favour of the OEM dated 12.03.2022. In other words, the document dated 12.03.2022 issued by the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Limited was not at all uploaded by the petitioner at the time of submission of bid which ended on 04.03.2025.

Page No.# 7/8

13. Be that as it may, the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his technical bid has approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 07.04.2025 issued notice and further passed an interim direction stating that no work order shall be issued to the respondent No.5. The interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time. The record reveals that the respondents have filed their affidavit whereby the decision so taken by the Respondent Authorities to technically disqualify the petitioner have been supported.

14. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. The question which arises before this Court is as to whether any interference in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. The materials on record clearly show that the petitioner did not comply with Clause 5 as quoted herein above of the bid document in as much as the petitioner did not submit any certificate as regards the supply made to the quantum required in terms of Clause 5 either of the petitioner or of the petitioner's OEM. Further to that, it also appears from the record that the petitioner has failed to comply with Clause 1.1 as above quoted of the Additional Terms and Conditions in as much as the petitioner had failed to produce a single work order/contract of having experience of supplying 50% of goods of similar nature which ought to have been not less than Rs.1.26 crores taking into account that Page No.# 8/8

the estimated bid value was Rs.2,53,83,500/-.

16. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of the Court that the reasons so assigned by the Respondent Authorities to disqualify the petitioner as being technically not responsive, cannot be said to be suffered from any illegality for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.

18. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant