Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Maa Manosha Trade Com. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bidder's qualifications and the compliance of tender requirements. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. legal standard for evaluating deviations from tender conditions. (Para 8 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. arbitrariness in evaluation of bids and related tender conditions. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Dhar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition on the ground that the tendering authority, i.e. the respondent no. 2, has deviated from the tender condition, in declaring the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 as technically responsive bidders, along with the petitioner. By referring to Clause 1.9, Clause 1.10, Clause 2.2 & Clause 2.4 of the Tender Document, the petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 did not satisfy the above conditions. Despite such non-compliance, the tendering authority has declared the Technical Bids of the said two respondents as responsive bids.
3. Clause nos.1.9, 1.10, 1.16, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 of the e-tender document are
Essential conditions of a tender must be strictly enforced; deviations must be fair and applicable to all bidders to avoid discrimination.
The court emphasized that strict compliance with tender conditions is essential and that arbitrary qualification despite disqualifications undermines the fairness required in the contracting process.
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
The court emphasized the principles of judicial restraint in administrative action, the lack of expertise of the court to correct administrative decisions, and the importance of public interest in te....
Important Point – Government Contract – Tender – Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during bidding process and that entire bidding process is carri....
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court established that significant deviations from tender guidelines and arbitrary evaluation criteria violate the principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
