Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Sudhang Kumar Brahma S/o Late Ratiram Brahma – Appellant
Versus
Bodoland Territorial Council – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of eligibility criteria and changes in the nit (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding arbitrary changes in eligibility requirements (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on eligibility criteria comparison (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. principles regarding arbitrariness in tender processes (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. assessment of the legality of the corrigendum changes (Para 18 , 21 , 23) |
| 6. restrictions in eligibility criteria must cater to fairness. (Para 19) |
| 7. changes in supply requirements can be challenged if unjustified. (Para 20) |
| 8. final ruling on the submissions and the writ petition (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC).
2. The petitioner is challenging Clause-5 of the Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025, by which a change has been made to Clause-5 of the NIT dated 13.02.2025.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the respondents had issued NIT dated 13.02.2025, for procurement of Desks and Benches for distribution to various schools under the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for an amount not exceeding Rs.6.00 crores. The last date
Eligibility criteria in tender processes cannot be changed arbitrarily without valid justification, maintaining fairness and transparency in public procurement.
The court held that imposing an experience requirement on manufacturers for government supply contracts, absent from the original tender documents, is arbitrary and unjustified.
The court upheld the validity of the tendering authority's criteria, emphasizing that terms are not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.
Point of Law : The author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, further observing that it is possible that the owner or employer of the project may give an ....
Eligibility criteria in tenders must be reasonable and serve public interest, and courts will not interfere unless proven arbitrary or malicious.
Tender conditions cannot differentiate based on ownership without rational basis, violating constitutional principles of equality and fairness. (Articles 14 and 19(1)(g))
The interpretation of tender documents and eligibility criteria should defer to the understanding of the tendering authority. Judicial review should not interfere unless there is mala-fide, arbitrari....
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting tender eligibility criteria, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention unless clear arbitrariness is shown.
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
