[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Ms K K Enterprise vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010034282026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/942/2026
MS K K ENTERPRISE
UZAN BAZAR SATI RADHIKA ROAD, PO UZANBAZAR, DIST KAMRUP
ASSAM 781001, REP. BY ITS PROP. SRI KALYAN KALITA, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, S/O LATE KAMINI KANTA KALITA,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 71, GANDHI BASTI (NEAR PRATIDIAN
NEWSPAPER OFFICE) CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
781003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. ADN SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI 781005
3:TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION
OF BID IN PURSUANCE OF E TENDER NOTICE DATED 03.12.
2025 IN RESPECT OF WORK FOR ESTB. OF 30 BEDDED CHC UNDER 15TH
FIN. HEALTH GRANT SCHEME UNDER NHM
ASSAM DIPILA HWC
IN DARRANG
DIST. REP. BY THE SUPTD. ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) CUM CONVENOR
NHM CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI 781005
4:NIPUL KALITA
Page No.# 2/4
S/O SARAT KALITA
RESIDENT OF SONDHA
PO AND PS NALBARI
DIST NALBARI
ASSAM 78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MS P SARMA,MS. P P DAS,MR. P P DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, SC, NHM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
20.02.2026
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for
the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.
2. Prior to publication of e-Tender vide Invitation for Bids [Re-IFB] dated 03.12.2025,
there was a previous e-Tender vide Invitation for Bids [Re-IFB] on 20.08.2025. By the Re-IFB
dated 20.08.2025, the respondent no. 2 invited bids inter alia for establishment of 11 nos. of
30 bedded Community Health Centre [CHC] under Fifteenth Finance Health Grant Scheme
under the NHM, Assam. One of the works included therein was construction of 'Dipila HWC
plus Deomornoi' for a Tender Value of Rs. 5,73,99,637/-. However, by a Cancellation Notice
dated 12.10.2025, Re-IFB dated 20.08.2025 was cancelled. Subsequently, Re-IFB dated
03.12.2025 was published for 17 nos. of contract-works for establishment of 30 bedded CHC
in two-Bid system. In R-IFB dated 03.12.2025, two of the contract-works are 'Dipila HWC' and
'Deomornoi' at a Tender Value of Rs. 5,73,99,637/- each. It is stated that the contract-work of
'Dipila HWC plus Deomornoi' tendered earlier vide Re-IFB dated 20.08.2025 was separated
into two contract-works in the subsequent Re-IFB dated 03.12.2025.
Page No.# 3/4
3. In the Bidding Document in Re-IFB dated 03.12.2025, Clause 7 had provided for site
visit. As per Clause 7.1, the bidder, at the bidder's own responsibility and risk, was
encouraged to visit and examine site of works and its surroundings and obtain all information
that might be necessary for preparing the bid and entering into a contract for construction of
the works. The cost of visiting the site was at the bidder's own expense. There was a similar
clause for site visit also in Re-IFB dated 20.08.2025.
4. The petitioner submitted its bid for both the contract-works in response to Re-IFB
dated 03.12.2025. In respect of the contract-work at Dipila HWC, there were four bidders.
The technical bid of the four bidders were opened and evaluated on 29.12.2025. After
evaluation, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee adjudged the technical bids of the other
three participant bidders as responsive while declaring the technical bid of the petitioner as
non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner submitted a site visit certificate which bears
a date earlier than Re-IFB dated 03.12.2025. The financial bids were subsequently opened
and as per the BOQ Summary details, the other three bids are declared as L-1, L-2 & L3
respectively. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that though financial bids have been opened, no work order has been issued to any
successful bidder till date.
5. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
nowhere in the Bidding Document it was mentioned that the site visit certificate was
essential. The petitioner submitted the site visit certificate which was made at the time of
preparing the bid for submission in response to Re-IFB dated 20.08.2025. At best, the site
visit certificate could be treated as an additional document but the same cannot be treated as
an essential document to declare the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive.
6. Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State
respondents has submitted that a format of the site visit certificate was part of the Bidding
Document in Re-IFB dated 03.12.2025 and as such, it was necessary on the part of the
bidders to submit an up-to-date site visit certificate after publication of Re-IFB dated
03.12.2025.
Page No.# 4/4
7. Issue notice, returnable on 11.03.2026.
8. As Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General has appeared and accepted notices
on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, issuance of formal notice to the said respondents
is dispensed with. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of
extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Gogoi within 3 [three]
working days from today.
9. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 4 by
speed post by tomorrow. In addition, as sought for, the petitioner is permitted to take steps
to serve notice upon the respondent no. 4 by way of dasti which shall be routed through the
Registry. After effecting steps by way of dasti upon the said respondent, a compliance
affidavit shall be filed on or before the next date of listing.
10. Having perused the clauses in the Bidding Document, it does not prima facie emerge
that the site visit certificate is an essential document for consideration of the technical bid
submitted in response to the Re-IFB dated 03.12.2025. Mere submission of a site visit
certificate by the petitioner could, at best, be treated as an additional document but the same
prima facie could not have been a reason for treating the technical bid of the petitioner as
non-responsive. In such view of the matter, it is ordered, in the interim, that the respondent
authorities shall not issue work order in respect of the contract-work at Dipila HWC till the
returnable date, if no work order has been issued till date.
11. List the case on 11.03.2026.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
