Ms Assam Electric Store vs The State Of Assam on 12 February, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

Page No. 1/5

GAHC010024522026

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/711/2026

MS ASSAM ELECTRIC STORE
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM , HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT R.N.B.
ROAD,
POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION KOKRAJHAR,
DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BIMAL KUMAR DUGAR, AGE-55
YRS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT , P.W.D, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
P.W.D.
BUILDING
ASSAMCHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 03

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
P.W.D. ELECT.
ASSAMCHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 03

4:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERP.W.D.
ELECT.
ASSAMCHANDMARI
GUWAHATI 03

5:SHREE GAUTAM CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
14
BILASPARAP.O. P.S. BILASPARADISTRICT DHUBRIASSAM 78334
Page No. 2/5

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DUBEY, MS N B KAYASTHA,MS. A B KAYASTHA,MR. A
N I HUSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD,

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 12.02.2026

Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 - 4.

2. By a Notice Inviting Bid [NIB] dated 16.12.2025, the respondent no. 3 invited bids from registered PWD Electrical Contractor/Firm under Class-I[A] having experience in similar nature of work for the following work :-

Sl. No. 1.

1. Construction of 33 KV dedicated feeder from Tetelia 132/33 KV Grid to Golaghat Medical College & Hospital, Bogorijeng, Golaghat.

Name of Work 2. Construction of 1 no. of 33 KV dedicated feeder bay at 132 GSS AEGCL, Golaghat for supply of power to Golaghat Medical College & Hospital, Assam.

3. Load Security payment to APDCL.

Approx. Bid value [in Rs.] Rs. 14,50,55,035.00 Rs. 29,01,101.00 For General Category & Rs. 14,50,550.00 for Bid Security reserved category.

       Cost of Document [in Rs.]      Rs. 20,000.00
       Completion Period              12 [Twelve] Months
       Category of Contract           Class-I[A]

3. Responding to the NIB, four nos. of bidders including the petitioner, submitted their

bids under the two-bid system, Technical Bid and Financial Bid.

4. Clause 4.5A[a] of the Bidding Document had mentioned that to qualify for award of the contract, a bidder should have the experience of satisfactorily completing [not less than 90% of the contract value], as a prime contractor [or as a nominated sub-contractor, where the sub-contractor involved in execution of all main items of work described in the bid document, provided further that all other qualification criteria are satisfied] at least one similar work of value not less than amounting to : Rs. 11,60,44,028.00 [Rupees Eleven Crore Sixty Lakh Forty Four Thousand and Twenty Eight] only which is 80% of the contract price.

5. When the Technical Bids were opened on 21.01.2026, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee considered the Technical Bids of all the four participant bidders. Upon evaluation, the technical bid of only one of the bidders was found responsive. The technical bids of the other three participant bidders were adjudged as non-responsive. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted the Joint Venture agreement indicating its share of 90% in the Joint Venture. But the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee observing that since the Joint Venture agreement was not a part of the Contract Agreement with the APDCL and the same could not be accepted for evaluation. Aggrieved by such rejection of his Technical Bids, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had executed a similar work on behalf of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] as a Joint Venture and the said work had a total contract value of Rs. 13,56,68,232.14. The petitioner has submitted a Work Completion Certificate from the APDCL with his Technical Bid certifying that the petitioner in a Joint Venture executed a similar work having contract value of Rs. 13,56,68,232.14. The petitioner had, however, inadvertently did not submit any document in support of the fact that it had 90% stake in the Joint Venture with one M/s Purbanchal Enterprise having 10% stake. Having realised the same, the petitioner on 09.01.2026 in clarification of its Technical Bid had submitted the Joint Venture agreement it had entered into with M/s Purbanchal Enterprise for executing the work for the APDCL wherein it was clearly specifically mentioned

that the petitioner had 90% stake in the Joint Venture.

7. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since from the Work Completion Certificate as regards the petitioner's experience in executing a similar work meeting the criteria set forth in Clause 4.5A[a] is not evident from the said document, the petitioner had submitted the Joint Venture agreement as a clarificatory document prior to opening of the Technical Bids. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee ought to have considered the same as the petitioner did not fail to submit any essential document in support of the Technical Bid. He has further submitted that it is settled that for counting the work experience in a Joint Venture, it is the respective stake agreed to by the parties in Joint Venture is relevant and since in the Joint Venture work executed by the petitioner for the APDCL, the petitioner had 90% stake and the said 90% in the Joint Venture meets the criteria set forth in Clause 4.5A[a] in the Bidding Document, it cannot be said that the petitioner's Technical Bid was non-responsive.

8. Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 1 - 4 has submitted that the last date of submission of the bid was on 31.12.2025. It was only on 09.01.2026, the petitioner had submitted the Joint Venture agreement. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee in its Minute had recorded the fact it was the petitioner who had willingly submitted the Joint Venture agreement. Meaning thereby, the Document was not sought for by Tendering Authority/Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. He has further pointed out that the Technical Bid of another bidder had been rejected on similar ground. The said bidder had in fact submitted the Joint Venture agreement with its Technical Bid but from the Joint Venture Agreement the percentage of the parties could not be ascertained and for that reason, the Technical Bid of the said bidder had also been adjudged non-responsive. He has further contended that any document submitted after the last date of bid submission cannot be taken into consideration and the decision of Technical Bid Evaluation Committee to declare the Technical Bid of the petitioner as non-responsive with the other bidder by no stretch is arbitrary. He has further contended that after evaluation, the Financial Bid of the lone technically responsive bidder has already been opened and accepted on 22.01.2026. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted then the other bidder has

to be allowed the same concession, which is not permissible in a bidding process. He has further contended that there is no clause in the Bidding Document for seeking clarification and the technical bids were to be considered only on the basis of the documents submitted by the bidder with its Technical Bid on-line.

9. The matter would require further consideration.

10. Issue notice, returnable on 25.02.2026. Notice is also issued to the interim prayer.

11. As Mr. Gogoi has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 - 4, issuance of formal notice in respect of the said respondents stand dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve an extra copy of the writ petition along with annexures, to Mr. Gogoi within 3 [three] working days from today.

12. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 5 by speed post within 3 [three] working days from today. In addition, the petitioner is permitted, as prayed for, to take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 5 by dasti service, which is to be routed through the Registry of the Court. After service of notice upon the respondent no. 5 by way of dasti, the petitioner shall file a compliance affidavit to that effect before the returnable date.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant