Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Bijoy Krishna Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedure and requirements for submission of tender bids. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. tender evaluation process and bid responsiveness standards. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments relating to procedural impropriety and cartelization allegations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court’s view on adherence to procedural and documentation requirements. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final ruling concerning merits of the writ petition. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr J Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr R R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12. Mr M Biswas, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and Mr N Deka, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 11.
2. The petitioner, herein, has challenged the acceptance of the technical bid of the respondent No. 6, and further, sought for a writ for setting aside the decision so taken to hold the technical e-bid of the petitioner, non-responsive. The petitioner has also sought for a direction that the respondent authorities be directed to accept the petitioner No. 1’s technical e-bid and open
Non-compliance with tender submission requirements, including necessary documentation and signatures, justifies the rejection of a technical bid regardless of prior acceptance.
Judicial review of tender processes is constrained; courts should not interfere unless decisions are arbitrary or favor a specific party, respecting the employer’s evaluation within the scope of rele....
Adherence to the prescribed format and requirements outlined in the bidding documents is crucial, and failure to comply with mandatory requirements can lead to the valid rejection of a technical bid.
The court upheld the decision of the respondent NHPCL, concluding that the NHPCL was within its rights to seek clarifications from the bidders as per the terms of the clauses and the manual.
Tender authorities have broad discretion in evaluating bids, and a failure to comply with mandatory document submission requirements justifies disqualification unless clear malice is shown.
The rejection of technical bids based on arbitrary grounds was unjustified, necessitating a fresh tender process due to the flawed evaluation and lack of two qualified bidders.
The court affirmed that tender documents must be signed as per mandatory requirements, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', thus validating the rejection of non-compliant bids.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
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
