Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Sudhang Kumar Brahma S/o Late Ratiram Brahma - Appellant
Versus
The Bodoland Territorial Council and Another - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1615 of 2025
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Tender Process
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) The court emphasized that an executive authority must adhere to the standards it sets (Para 13).
(C) Criteria cannot be changed mid-process without valid justification or objective reasoning (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a change in eligibility criteria in the tender for supplying school furniture which raised the experience requirement arbitrarily from approximately Rs.2.04 crores to Rs.2.40 crores, limiting eligibility to past experience solely with the BTC (Paras 4, 5, 22).
Findings of Court:
The changes made did not have adequate justification and were arbitrary, leading to a decision favoring certain bidders over others (Paras 18, 20, 24).
Issues: Whether the modifications made to the eligibility criteria were arbitrary and whether restricting eligibility only to past supplies to BTC violated fair participation principles (Paras 12, 22).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that raising eligibility criteria without justification undermines transparency and fairness in the bidding process; therefore, the change was invalidated (Paras 20, 24).
Result: The writ petition is allowed, setting aside Clause-5 of the Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.P. Pathak, B. Das, C. Paul
For the Respondent: S. Bora
| 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 of submission of bids in terms of the NIT dated 13.02.2025 was 10.03.2025.
4. Clause-5 of the Eligibility Criteria of the NIT required the bidder to have an experience of executing at least one single work order of similar nature/Government supply order of 34% of the tender value and the Annual Financial Turnover minimum 67% of the tender value (in all cases of Civil Engineering Norm/Government supply) in one year during the last five year, updated to present price level, which meant that the bidder was to have had the past experience of supplying similar articles/materials worth Rs.2,03,99,660/-, i.e. approximately Rs.2.04 crores.
5. The respondents thereafter issued a Corrigendum dated 10.03.2025, i.e. on the last date of submission of bids/tenders in terms of the NIT dated 13.02.2025, wherein the last date of submission of bids was extended upto 20.03.2025. Thereafter the respondents issued another Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025, wherein Clause-5 of the Eligibility Criteria of the NIT was altered. As per the Clause-5 of the Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025, which replaced Clause 5 of the NIT, the bidder must have the experience of executing and completing at least one supply order of Wooden Desks and Benches with Iron and Steel frame to the Government of BTC in the Education Department, for an amount of not less than Rs.2.40 crores.
6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the change in the past experience/financial capacity required of a bidder, in terms of Clause-5 of the Corrigendum, restricting the experience of supply only to the Government of the BTC is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. He submits that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played, inasmuch as, the petitioner had the past financial experience of supply of similar materials in terms of Clause-5 of the NIT, wherein a tenderer had to have the experience of supplying 34% of Rs.6.00 crores, i.e. Rs.2,03,99,660/- of similar items, to the Government. The raising of the past minimum supply order required of a bidder, to qualify/participate in terms of the Corrigendum to Rs.2.40 crores, is without any objective criteria. No reasons have been given by the State respondents as to why the past Experience Criteria of having supplied similar materials of Rs.2,03,99,660/- has been raised to Rs.2.40 crores. He submits that the raising of the past experience of having supplied similar materials to the Government amounting to Rs.2.40 crores, being without there being any nexus to the object, has been made only to favour their blue eyed boys. As such, the same should be set aside as it was arbitrary. He also submits that as per the NIT dated 13.02.2025, a bidder had to have the past experience of supplying similar materials to the Government. However vide the Corrigendum, t
