Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd., Represented By One of Its Director Sri Aakash Surana, Son of Basant Surana – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented By The Office Of The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department – Respondent
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.
A simultaneous site visit by multiple bidders does not constitute cartelization or breach of tender integrity agreements without substantive evidence of collusion.
Joint site inspections by competing bidders do not inherently indicate collusion unless substantiated by substantial evidence; integrity agreements in tender processes must be respected.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.
Disqualification from tender processes necessitates adherence to procedural fairness; blacklisting without notice is arbitrary and invalid.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness; minor technical defects in bids do not justify interference unless proven arbitrary or mala fide.
The court upheld the banning order based on the violation of the Integrity Pact and directed the refund of forfeited Security Deposit/Earnest Money Deposits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
Banning orders require proof beyond reasonable doubt of misconduct; otherwise, natural justice demands adherence to procedural fairness, especially in cases invoking penalties like forfeiture.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conduct of the tendering authority, including the introduction of substantive terms through corrigendum and biased disqualification proces....
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
