Joint site inspections by competing bidders do not inherently indicate collusion unless substantiated by substantial evidence; integrity agreements in tender processes must be respected.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The validity and legality of a tender process in which the petitioner had participated and emerged as the 3rd lowest bidder (L3) is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. As per the facts projected, the Public Works Department had floated a tender on 29.07.2025 for construction of a Circuit House at Udalguri on EPC mode. The petitioner being interested and claiming to be eligible on all respects had participated in the said tender process. Under Clause 6 (1) of the “Information and Guidelines for Bidders”, there was a requirement for a mandatory joint inspection of the site which the petitioner had done on 08.08.2025 and accordingly on 21.08.2025, the petitioner had submitted its bid. On 22.08.2025, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had also submitted their respective bids. The technical bids were opened on 28.08.2025 when the bids of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to be responsive which was followed by opening of the financial bids. In the financial evaluation, the financial bid of the petitioner was found to be the 3rd lowest (L3) whereas the respondent no. 3 was declared to be L1 and respondent no. 4 as L2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the aspect that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had formed a cartel which is in violation of Article 2 (2) (b) of the NIT. It is submitted that the bids by the said respondent nos. 3 and 4 were submitted as a cartel and therefore, the entire tender process stands vitiated and is required to be interfered with.

3. I have heard Shri R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APWD; Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Borua, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Shri S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

4. Shri R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the requirement of submitting an Integrity Agreement to maintain the sanctity of a fair competition in the tender process. Article 2 is with the aspect of the Commitment of the Bidder and under Article 2 (2) (b) of the same, there was a requirement that the bidders would not enter into any undisclosed agreement restricting competitiveness or to cartelize in the bidding process. It is submitted that one of the mandatory condition was to make a joint inspection of the site and from such joint inspection made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, it is clear that the aforesaid condition was violated. It is the case of the petitioner that the representative of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were together while making the site inspection. The learned counsel, in this connection has drawn the attention of this Court to the site inspection report of the respondent no. 3 which is supported by a photograph. Similar site inspection report of the same date i.e., 14.08.2025 is also submitted by the respondent no. 4 with the same photograph. It is submitted that the same demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were in collusion while submitting their respective bids as a result of which the sanctity of the tender process was tarnished.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the inferences which have been enumerated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on 22.12.2025. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to cer