[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
M/S United Construction vs The State Of Tripura Represented By The ... on 26 February, 2026
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.591 of 2025
M/S United Construction, represented by its sole proprietor- Sri Krishnendu
Maity, Son of late Bankim Behari Maity, of Village- Vidyasagar, PO-
Kakdwip, District- South 24 Pargana, West Bengal
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura, Public Works Department (R&B), New Capital Complex, PO-
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), New Capital Complex,
PO-Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
3. Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, Public Works Department (R&B),
Mantribari Road, PO- Agartala, District- West Tripura
4. Executive Engineer, Government of Tripura, Sonamura Division, Public
Works Department (R&B), PO- Sonamura, District- Sepahijala Tripura
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirban Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Haridas Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
26/02/2026
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking damages for
cancellation of a work allotted under a Letter of Acceptance (LOA)
dt.06.12.2022 to the petitioner pursuant to an NIT dt.28.09.2022, which was
cancelled on 12.01.2023.
2. The order of cancellation dt.12.01.2023, titled as a
"Corrigendum" refers to the said decision having been taken in the 1st meeting
of the Technical/Financial Bid Evaluation Committee.
3. The said corrigendum dt.12.01.2023 did not give any reason for
the said cancellation.
4. Petitioner then filed WP(C) No.565/2023 challenging the same.
5. The Writ Petition was allowed on 22.05.2024. This Court held
that a „legally binding contract‟ had come into existence pursuant to a
conscious decision of the competent authority, that the LOA and Letter for
Commencement (LOC) of work had also been issued in favour of the
petitioner, and once a „legally binding contract‟ came into existence, the
respondents could not have revoked it or cancelled it without proper notice.
The corrigendum dt.12.01.2023 was quashed by the Division Bench, and
liberty was given to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance
with law after due opportunity to the petitioner to show cause within a
reasonable time.
6. It is also not in dispute that on 11.05.2023, the work in question
had already been allotted to another third party contractor, by name Sri Kanu
Lal Saha.
7. This was admittedly done without issuing a fresh tender after
cancellation of LOA given to petitioner on 12.01.2023 and even though the
said Sri Kanu Lal Saha‟s financial bid was Rs.4,75,186/- more than that
financial bid of the petitioner.
8. This fact was not apparently disclosed by the respondents in their
pleadings in WP(C) 565/2023 and also not orally when the Writ was disposed
of on 22.05.2024.
9. After the said decision was rendered, the 4th respondent issued a
Show Cause Notice dt.28.06.2024 to the petitioner mentioning that as per
DNIeT condition, valid copy of enlistment of appropriate class registered with
PWD/TTAADC/MES/CPWD/Railway/Government Organization of other
State and Central Government has to be submitted by petitioner along with
tender, that the said document was not found with the tender documents, that
this was indicated in the committee decision taken on 03.12.2022, that the 4th
respondent‟s office had asked the petitioner to submit the shortfall document
referred to supra by 25.01.2023, but petitioner submitted the same document
dt.20.03.2013 which he had submitted along with the tender; and the petitioner
should show cause why the LOA dt.06.12.2022 and LOC dt.21.12.2022,
should not be cancelled.
10. Petitioner submitted a reply on 13.08.2024 to the same. In the
said reply, he pointed out that he had uploaded through the e-procurement
online system Trade Registration No.655 as FORM 11 along with other
documents, as mentioned in the bid documents; that procedure for enlistment
of contractor varies from one state to another state, and several procedures are
adopted by other States for enlistment of contractors; as per a memorandum
dt.19.11.2012 of the Finance Department of Government of West Bengal,
there is a guideline for awarding tender/bid to the tenderer/bidder; that
document dt.20.03.2013 shows that petitioner is a Class (I) (R&B) contractor;
after submission of all those documents, the 4th respondent had admitted that
the petitioner had fulfilled criteria required for accepting of tender; and so its
tender was treated as eligible for the purpose of acceptance; and in
consideration of the said eligibility, the 4th respondent had issued the LOA and
the LOC of work.
It was also contended that there was a contractual relationship
which had come into existence between the parties on account of issuance of
the LOA and the LOC, and the 4th respondent should withdraw the Show
Cause Notice, and allow the petitioner to execute the work.
11. Thereafter on 19.11.2024, the 4th respondent passed a detailed
order justifying cancellation of the LOA issued on 06.12.2022, and the LOC
dt.21.12.2022.
In the said order, it was admitted that the LOA was issued by his
office, but it was stated that the LOC, though issued in favour of the
petitioner, was not circulated, and no worksite was handed over.
It was stated that in the meantime, the 4th respondent had received
a decision of cancellation of the earlier decision of the 1st meeting of BEC
dt.29.11.2022 communicated on 03.12.2022 stating that a valid copy of
enlistment of appropriate class registered with PWD, etc. issued in favour of
the petitioner, was not found in the tender document; therefore the
cancellation order was passed on 12.01.2023; thereafter a Show Cause Notice
was given on 28.06.2024, to which a reply was given on 13.08.2024 by the
petitioner; but there was no satisfactory explanation on the part of the
petitioner for non-submission of copy of valid enlistment by the petitioner,
and cancellation for failure to annex the said enlistment certificate of the
bidder, is justified .
12. Challenging the same and seeking other reliefs, this Writ Petition
was filed by petitioner.
13. The petitioner averred that the episode of issuing the show cause
notice was just a drama, that the official respondents had suppressed before
this Court the fact of awarding the work to the Sri Kanu Lal Saha; that they
have frustrated petitioner‟s vested right under the legally binding contract
fraudulently; and he should be compensated for the damage suffered @15% of
contract value as per the Tripura Government‟s schedule of rates.
14. The petitioner‟s counsel submits that Annexure-R/1
dt.20.03.2013 was a letter from the Joint Secretary, PWD, Government of
West Bengal to the Chief Engineer, PWD specifically stating about the
enlistment of the petitioner as an enlisted Class-I (R&B) Contractor approved
in the list of contractors. He contends that this itself is sufficient proof that the
petitioner possesses the qualification of being a Class-I Contractor registered
with the Government of West Bengal, that this document was given along
with the other documents while submitting the tender by him, that this is also
admitted by the respondents, and therefore the cancellation of the LOA issued
to the petitioner on 06.12.2022 and the LOC dt. 21.12.2022, is illegal and
arbitrary.
15. Counsel for the respondents refutes the said contentions, and
states that only the copy of the enlistment document issued by the appropriate
agency, should have been given as proof of such enlistment as a Class-I
Contractor by the petitioner, and the letter dt.20.03.2013 written by the Joint
Secretary, PWD, Government of West Bengal to the Chief Engineer, PWD
cannot be treated as such evidence of enlisting of petitioner as Class-I (R&B)
contractor.
Consideration by the Court
16. It is not denied by respondents that before the LOA dt.06.12.2022
was issued to the petitioner, there was a scrutiny of the tender submitted by
the petitioner by the Tender Evaluation Committee appointed to scrutinize the
tenders submitted pursuant to the NIT dt.28.09.2022.
17. Once the decision of acceptance of offer of petitioner was
communicated to petitioner a concluded contract had come into existence
between the petitioner and the official respondents. The Division Bench in its
order dt.22.05.2024 in WP(C) No.565 of 2023 had already given such a
finding, which has attained finality.
18. So the instant case is not a case of non-acceptance of tender of
petitioner but one where, after the tender was accepted after scrutiny and
LOA was issued on dt.06.12.2022 by which contract had come into existence
(as held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No.565/2023), and
the LOC dt.21.12.2022 was also circulated, there is a cancellation of the same
on 12.01.2023 and the same was reiterated on 19.11.2024.
19. In Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited and Others v. Vardan
Linkers and Others1, it was held that where a contractual dispute has a public
interest element, power of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of
India may be invoked. This was also reiterated in Rishi Kiran Logistics
Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others2.
20. Admittedly the work for which the tender had been issued was
strengthening the road from Mayarani to Bagma (upto Melaghar- Bisramgunj
road) under Sonamura Assembly Constituency which was to be paid from
public funds. Petitioner‟s financial bid was less than that of Sri Kanu Lal
Sahu‟s financial bid and the State, had it continued the contract with
petitioner, would have saved substantial sum of money of at least
Rs.4,75,186/-. Moreover the factum of awarding the work to Sri Kanu Lal
Sahu, that too without issuing a fresh tender, was admittedly suppressed by the
(2008) 12 SCC 500, at page 510
(2015) 13 SCC 233
official respondents from this Court in WP(C) No.565 of 2023. Thus
undoubtedly there is public element involved not only because of the nature of
work, but also because of the saving of money from public exchequer.
21. The condition which the respondents wanted the petitioner and
other bidders to fulfil is that they should be Class-I (R&B) Contractors. This
was to be established no doubt by submitting a valid copy of enlistment of
appropriate class registered with PWD/ TTAADC/ MES/ CPWD/ Railway/
Government Organization of other State and Central Government.
22. Since the LOA dt.06.12.2022 had already been issued to the
petitioner, it is presumed that the said committee of the respondents was
satisfied that all conditions mentioned in the tender were fulfilled by petitioner
including the condition that he is a Class I (R&B) Contractor on the basis of
Annexure-R/1 dt.20.03.2013 submitted by the petitioner along with its tender.
23. It is not the case of the respondents that they doubted the
correctness of Annexure-R/1 dt.20.03.2013 submitted by the petitioner, or
they had written to the PWD of the Government of West Bengal, and
ascertained that the petitioner was in fact not enlisted as a Class-I (R&B)
Contractor by them.
24. In other words the respondents had no reason to doubt and indeed
did not doubt the authenticity of Annexure-R/1 dt.20.03.2013 or the statement
therein of the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, State of West Bengal
that petitioner was such an enlisted Class-I (R&B) contractor.
25. The question is whether non-submission of the copy of enlistment
by petitioner alone can enable the respondents to cancel the LOA
dt.06.12.2022 and the LOC dt.21.12.2022.
26. In other words is submission of valid copy of enlistment of
appropriate class registered with PWD/ TTAADC/ MES/ CPWD/ Railway/
Government Organization of other State and Central Government, the only
way in which his enlistment as Class-I (R&B) Contractor to be proved.
27. We think not. The proof of possessing such a qualification, could
be proved by submitting (a) the actual enlistment copy or (b) a document such
as letter dt.20.03.2013 [Annexure-R/1] of a High Government Official
certifying that he possessed the said qualification.
28. Therefore the reason for cancelling the LOA and LOC given by
the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.14 of the
Constitution of India. The suppression of factum of award of work on
11.05.2023 to Sri Kanu Lal Sahu to this Court in WP(C) No.565 of 2023 also
makes their conduct mala fide and fraudulent.
29. It is also startling to note that after the initial cancellation of the
petitioner‟s tender on 12.01.2023, the contract was straightaway awarded to
Sri Kanu Lal Saha on 11.05.2023 without issuing any fresh tender.
30. Admittedly to the NIT dt.28.09.2022, there were only two bids -
one of the petitioner and one of Sri Kanu Lal Saha. The difference in the
financial bids of the two bids is Rs.4,75,186/- i.e., the financial bid of
petitioner was lower than the financial bid of Sri Kanu Lal Sahu.
31. Had the petitioner executed the contract, the State would have
saved that much money, but by giving it to Sri Kanu Lal Saha without issuing
a fresh tender, the State had to pay Rs.4,75,186/- more to him, which could
not have been payable to the petitioner, and thus public interest has suffered.
This action is also arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.14 of the
Constitution of India.
32. We strongly deprecate this conduct on the part of the respondents
Government in cancelling on frivolous grounds the LOA dt.06.12.2022 and
LOC dt.21.12.2022 issued to petitioner, not issuing a fresh tender after such
cancellation, and straightaway giving the work to Sri Kanu Lal Saha at a loss
to the public exchequer of the said amount of Rs.4,75,186/-.
33. It looks that something untoward and not bonafide had happened
behind the scenes which led to a change of mind on the part of the respondents
in cancelling on 12.01.2023, the LOA issued to the petitioner on 06.12.2022,
and straightaway awarding the work on 11.05.2023 to Sri Kanu Lal Saha.
34. In our opinion, the cancellation of the LOA dt.06.12.2022 issued
to the petitioner by the respondents is not a bona fide act and appears to be to
favour Sri Kanu Lal Saha by awarding him work at a loss to the public
exchequer.
35. Therefore, we declare that the memorandum dt.19.11.2024
passed by the fourth respondent upholding the cancellation dt.12.01.2023 of
the LOA dt.06.12.2022 given to the petitioner by the respondents, is arbitrary,
illegal, unreasonable, and violative of Art.14 and 300A of the Constitution of
India.
36. However since the work in question appears to have been already
executed by Sri Kanu Lal Saha, it is not possible in this Writ Petition, to allow
the petitioner to complete the work.
37. However liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Civil
Court and claim damages for wrongful cancellation of the LOA dt.06.12.2022
issued to him by proving the loss, if any, caused to him.
38. The respondents shall also pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the
petitioner within 8(eight) weeks.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.03.03 15:41:00 +05'30'
