Shri Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee vs The Additional Of Chief Secretary To The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 4818 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Shri Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee vs The Additional Of Chief Secretary To The ... on 22 May, 2026

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010098252026




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:7093-
DB

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

                             Case No. : WA/164/2026

           SHRI PARASH KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE
           S/O. LATE SATYENDRA NATH BHATTACHARJEE, RESIDENT OF REGENT
           PARADISE, GHORAMARA CHARIALI, PS HATIGAON, GUWAHATI -28,
           DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM



           VERSUS

           THE ADDITIONAL OF CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 6
           ORS.
           IN-CHARGE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006.

           2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
            DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-781006.

           3:THE SECRETARY
           TO THE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-781006.

           4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
           ASSAM
            IRRIGATION
            CHANDMARI
            GUWAHATI-781003.

           5:SRI SAILENDRA KUMAR BAISHYA
           THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
            JORHATI CIRCLE IRRIGATION NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE
            JORHAT 785001.
                                                                  Page No.# 2/6


            6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             BOKAKHAT KHUMTAI DIVISION IRRIGATION
             BOKAKHAT

            7:M/S M P AGARWALLA
            ADD- AT ROAD
             BOKAKHAT TOWN
             P.O. AND P.S. BOKAKHAT-785612
             DIST-GOLAGHAT
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : PETITIONER IN PERSON,

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,




                                         BEFORE
               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                         ORDER

22.05.2026 (A.D.Choudhury, J).

1. We have heard Mr. Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee, appellant-in-

person. We have also heard Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department, representing the respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4185/2023, along with other connected writ petitions.

3. The appellant filed the three writ petitions being WP(C) No. Page No.# 3/6

4185/2023, WP(C) No. 2485/2024 and WP(C) No. 6431/2023, which were dismissed by the impugned common judgment and order dated 24.04.2026, primarily on the ground of maintainability.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant instituted these three writ petitions questioning two tender processes initiated by the Irrigation Department.

5. In WPC 4185/2023, it was alleged that the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat (Irrigation) Circle, had improperly proceeded with a tender dated 15.06.2023 despite there being only a single bidder. According to the appellant, in the absence of competitive participation, the authorities ought to have cancelled and re- floated the tender rather than hastily allotting it to the sole bidder.

6. Subsequently, WP(C) 6431/2023 was filed assailing another tender dated 15.07.2023. The grievance projected therein was that the authorities, in collusion with the private respondent, had manipulated the tender process and granted the contract in violation of settled norms governing public procurement. The appellant further sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned departmental authorities and the successful bidder, alleging conspiracy and abuse of official position.

7. Thereafter, a third writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2485/2024, was instituted challenging the competence of the Superintending Engineer to issue tenders in view of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2022 and sought cancellation of the consequential order issued pursuant thereto.

Page No.# 4/6

8. During pendency, several interlocutory applications were also filed by the appellant, seeking a stay of execution of the works, etc., which was not granted at any point in time.

9. Upon consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the learned Single Judge first examined the maintainability of the writ petitions.

10. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant had not specifically challenged either the NIT or the work orders issued in favour of the successful bidders, despite admittedly being aware of the same.

11. The Court further recorded that the works pursuant to the tenders had already been completed and no interim order had ever been passed staying execution of the contract.

12. Most importantly, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of communications produced by the department, found that the appellant was not an eligible bidder during the relevant financial years, as his contractor registration had not been renewed.

13. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant lacks locus to challenge the tender process. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Raunaq International -VS- I.V.R construction Limited reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, that an ineligible bidder cannot maintain a challenge to award a contract.

14. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable and amounted to an abuse of the Page No.# 5/6

process of the Court.

15. The impugned judgment warrants affirmation in our hands inasmuch as we are in total agreement with the determination made.

16. We are in total agreement that once the registration of the appellant-in-person as a Class-I contractor expired and stood un- renewed for the Financial Years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the appellant lacked eligibility to participate in the tender process, and he had no enforceable legal right either to assail the tender process or the consequential work orders.

17. The omission to challenge the NIT and the work orders, despite the appellant admittedly being aware of the same, goes to the root of maintainability for the reason that in the absence of a challenge to the foundational order/decisions, no effective writ could have been issued.

18. In the present case, when the work in question has already been executed, the interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would have been entirely academic and contrary to the settled principle governing the judicial review in contractual matters.

19. The allegations of conspiracy and arbitrariness are unsupported by a foundational pleading or a legally sustainable challenge to the decision-making process. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in concluding that the writ petitions constituted an abuse of process.

Page No.# 6/6

20. The judgment impugned, thus, reflects a proper exercise of restraint consistent with the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and calls for no interference in the appeal.

21. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

22. Parties to bear their own cost.

                 JUDGE                              CHIEF JUSTICE



Comparing Assistant