Pintu Deb vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 13 March, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                 Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010051762026




                                                          undefined

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1471/2026

         PINTU DEB
         SON OF UPENDRA DEB, BISHNU PALLY ROAD, WARD NO. 17, HOJAIMB,
         PO, HOJAI, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM PIN-782435



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
         HOUSING URBAN AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006

         2:THE HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD

          HOJAI
          REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MEMBER SECRETARY EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD
          HOJAI
          DISTRICT- HOJAI
          ASSAM
          PIN-782435.

         3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER

          HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD
          HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI
          ASSAM
          PIN-782435

         4:THE CHAIRMAN
          HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD
          HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI
         ASSAM
          PIN-782435.
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/5


            5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

             HOJAI
             SANKARDEV NAGAR
             HOJAI
             ASSAM
             DISTRICT- HOJAI
             ASSAM
             PIN-782435

            6:THE FINANCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

             HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD
             HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI
             ASSAM
             PIN-782435.

            7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

             HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD
             HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAL
             ASSAM
             PIN-782435

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS. P BARMAN (BORKAKOTI), S SINGH,MR. S K SINGH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                           ORDER

13.03.2026

Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 5.

2. The respondent Hojai Municipal Board published a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] on 07.01.2026 inviting bids for award of 31 nos. of works. The petitioner finding himself eligible, submitted his bids for 5 [five] nos. of contract-works. On 25.02.2025, the respondent no. 7 Page No.# 3/5

issued a Notice stating that any bid offered below 10% or more would have adverse impact on quality of the works. The contractors who had quoted below 10% of the tender values in the NIT, were requested to submit their item-wise justification with proper price analysis against their quoted bid value within a period of 48 hours. The petitioner submitted a representation in response to the Notice dated 25.02.2026 on 27.02.2026. The petitioner and a nos. of other bidders had also submitted a representation before the respondent no. 5 on 27.02.2026. It is the further case of the petitioner that after opening of the Price Bid, the petitioner who quoted below 10% of the tender value, emerged as L-1 in respect of those five contract-works. On 06.03.2026, the entire tender process initiated by the NIT dated 07.01.2026 was cancelled and immediately thereafter on 07.03.2026, a fresh NIT was published for the same 31 nos. of contract-works, which were in the NIT dated 07.01.2026.

3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had emerged as L-1, the cancellation of the tender process and the five nos. of contract-works wherein the petitioner had submitted his bids, is illegal and arbitrary.

4. Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate has pointed out that in the earlier NIT dated 07.03.2026, there was no limit with regard to offered bid value. But in the NIT dated 07.03.2026, a new clause has been incorporated to the effect that any offered bid value beyond 10% below the tender value would be rejected and no bid would be entertained beyond 10% below the tender value in any circumstances.

5. Issue notice, returnable on 22.04.2026.

6. As Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 5, issuance of formal notice to the said respondents is dispensed with. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Baruah within 2 [two] working days from today.

7. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 Page No.# 4/5

& 7 by speed post within 2 [two] working days from today.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim prayer. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for interim order for staying the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 07.03.2026.

9. On comparison of the NIT dated 07.01.2026 and the NIT dated 07.03.2026, it is prima facie noticed that both the NITs were/are for the same 31 nos. of contract-works. In connection with the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 25.02.2026, the respondent authorities in the Hojai Municipal Board appeared to have taken a decision initially to call for justifications from the bidders who had quoted below 10% of the tender value in respect of the contract-works. Subsequently on 06.03.2026, the entire tender process initiated by the NIT dated 07.01.2026 had been cancelled. From the Tender Cancellation Notice dated 06.03.2026, it is noticed that the tender process had been cancelled pursuant to a decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It was thereafter decided that re-tender would be issued in due course of time. The participant bidders have been given liberty to participate in the re-render process. Thereafter the NIT dated 07.03.2026 has been published with a new clause to the effect that any bid value beyond 10% below the tender value would be rejected and no bid would be entertained beyond 10% below the tender value in any circumstances.

10. The law is settled that submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies or instrumentalities or any authority coming within the purview of the Article 12 of the Constitution are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. The award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. In the matter of award of contract, the Government or its agencies/instrumentalities have to act reasonably and fairly at Page No.# 5/5

all points of time. It is only to that extent, a bidder has an enforceable right in the Court who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. It is also settled that it is within the discretion of the tendering authority or employer to cancel a tender process. As it is an administrative decision, no reason is required to be assigned for cancellation of the tender process at first. If questioned, such reasons can be assigned in the response filed subsequently on behalf of the tendering authority / employer.

11. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order stalling the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 07.03.2026 for thirty-one nos. of works of infrastructure, meant for public, at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner even he if had emerged as L-1 bidder in respect of the contract-works in which he had submitted his bids in the earlier tender process, neither any Letter of Acceptance / Work Order was issued to the petitioner and as such, no right seems to have been crystallized in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for interim relief is declined.

12. List the case on 22.04.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant