[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
M/S Birajyoti Nirman Udyog vs The State Of Tripura on 9 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 152/2026
1. M/s Birajyoti Nirman Udyog, a partnership firm having its
Head Office at AD Nagar, Police Line, P.O.+P.S. AD Nagar,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799003, represented by its Partners
i.e. Petitioner Nos. 2,3,4 and 5;
2. Sri Arun Kumar Dey, son of late Biraj Mohan Dey, resident
of AD Nagar, Police Line, P.O.+P.S. AD Nagar, District- West
Tripura, Pin-799003;
3. Smt. Kakali Das Dey, wife of Sri Arun Kumar Dey, resident
of AD Nagar, Police Line, P.O.+P.S. AD Nagar, District- West
Tripura, Pin-799003;
4. Smt. Anushka Dey, daughter of Sri Arun Kumar Dey,
resident of AD Nagar, Police Line, P.O.+P.S. AD Nagar, District-
West Tripura, Pin-799003;
5. Sri Ayush Kumar Dey, son of Sri Arun Kumar Dey, resident
of AD Nagar, Police Line, P.O.+P.S. AD Nagar, District- West
Tripura, Pin-799003;
..... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Public
Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Civil Secretariat-799010, P.S. New Capital
Complex, District- West Tripura.
2. The Executive Engineer, Agartala Division No.III, Public
Works Department (R&B), Netaji Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala-
799001, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B),
Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban-799006, P.S.
New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee
GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 09.03.2026
Whether fit for reporting : No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned GA
appearing for the State-respondents.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show
cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be
issued, for setting aside/quashing the impugned Memorandum dated
13.02.2026 (Annexure 8 supra) issued by the respondent No.2, disqualifying
petitioner No.1, from taking part/submission of bid in any bidding process of
PWD, Tripura for 1(one) year;
ii. Call for the records, appertaining to this petition;
iii. After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute in terms of
prayer No. i. above;
iv. In the interim stay operation of the impugned Memorandum dated
13.02.2026 (Annexure 8 supra) issued by the respondent No.2, disqualifying
the petitioner No.1 from taking part/submission of bid in any bidding process
of PWD, Tripura, till disposal of the instant writ petition;
v. Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and
proper."
3. The facts of the case, lies in a narrow compass, is that the
respondent No.2 by a Memorandum dated 13.02.2026
disqualified the petitioner No.1, M/s Birajyoti Nirman Udyog, from
taking part/submission of bid in any bidding process of Public
Works Department for 1(one) year starting from the date of
issuance of the said Memorandum, without issuing any show-
cause notice or without affording any opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners or without considering representation of the
petitioners dated 11.07.2025 and 18.07.2025.
4. The contention of Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 formed a
partnership construction firm in the name of petitioner No.1 on
02.08.2023, and subsequently vide order dated 19.10.2023 the
individual enlistment in the name of petitioner No.2 was
converted in the name of petitioner No.1, partnership firm
consequent to which existence of individual enlistment in the
name of petitioner no.2 has become invalid. It has further
submitted that upon bonafide mistake the petitioner No.2 has
submitted the e-tender towards NIeT in his individual capacity by
submitting his old enlistment, and when the same was detected
the petitioner No.2 by his communications requested the
respondent no.2 to cancel the bid submitted by the petitioner
no.2. It has further been submitted that the respondent No.2
without affording any opportunity to the petitioners passed the
impugned Memorandum dated 13.02.2026. It has further been
submitted that the respondent no.2 without prior notice passed
the impugned Memo. Learned counsel, in fine, has urged this
court to set-aside the impugned Memo dated 13.02.2026 for all
purposes. .
5. This court has meticulously gone through the record and
the communications. From a plain reading of Clause 33 of
Standard Bidding Document, it appears that before taking any
punitive decision from debarring any bidder from taking part in
bidding process, the authority is under obligation to issue show-
cause notice or ask for an explanation on to that regard. Here in
this case, without issuing any show-cause notice or without
asking for any explanation, the petitioners were debarred from
taking part in any bidding process for a period of one year, which
according to this court, is a unilateral decision taken by the
respondents. Thus, it could be assumed that the said
Memorandum dated 13.02.2026 is not in proper form. The law is
well settled that before any punitive action is proposed to be
taken against an individual which affects his rights, he must be
given an opportunity to show cause. This is the essence of the
rule of 'audi alteram partem' which is the principal doctrine of
natural justice.
6. At this juncture, learned GA appearing for the State-
respondents has in all fairness submitted that already he has
instructed the respondents and on his sensitization, the
respondents indicated that they will withdraw the impugned
Memo and will proceed in accordance with law.
7. In view of the above, the impugned Memorandum
dated 13.02.2026 stands set-aside.
8. However, without entering into merits of the case, the
instant writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the
respondents to proceed in accordance with law. This court hopes
and trusts that the respondents shall definitely proceed in
accordance with law.
As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2026.03.12 18:02:22
-04'00'
