SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 361

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
S.G.F. Infra Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, through Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6694 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R. Pant, K. Kalita
For the Respondents: H. Gupta, T. Gupta, B. Pathak

Medium enterprises are not entitled to Earnest Money Deposit exemption under government rules, highlighting the necessity for proper MSME classification in tender processes.

Headnote:(A) Government of India (General Financial Rules) 2017 - Rule 170(i) - Writ Petition challenging disqualification of technical bid due to insufficient Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) - Clauses 11 and 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender emphasized - Medium enterprises not entitled to EMD exemption under the GFR conditions - Petitioner initially categorized incorrectly and later submitted valid documentation to qualify - Court set aside disqualification, ordered reevaluation of bids. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 28, 38, 40)

(B) Constitutional Law - Equality before law - Inconsistent actions by government agencies leading to potential violation of Article 14 - Equal opportunity for all bidders emphasized regarding submission of additional documentation. (Paras 38)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was disqualified from bidding for not submitting adequate Earnest Money under the requirements specified in the tender notice, claiming exemption based on incorrect categorization as a medium enterprise. The critical issue involved the interpretation of MSME classification and adherence to the financial rules as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender.

Findings of Court:
The Court found inconsistencies in handling the bid disqualification and directed reevaluation, ensuring both fairness and compliance with the constitutional mandate.

Issues: The primary issues addressed include the validity of EMD exemption claims and the proper categorization of MSME qualifications in relation to the disqualification of the Petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the disqualification lacked legal basis considering the later submission of correct certification and non-uniform application of bidding conditions.

Result: The approval of disqualification set aside, with further instructions for reevaluation.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Pant, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the official Respondents and Ms. T. Gupta and Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsels appear on behalf of the Respondent No.11.

PREFACE

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid vide the approval of the Competent Authority dated 07.11.2025. The Petitioner also assails the declaration of the Respondent No.11 as the L1 bidder and seeks for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 to declare the Petitioner as technically qualified and open the financial bid of the Petitioner.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The Director (Contracts) of the Respondent Organization issued a Notice Inviting Tender for design and construction of 120 (80+40) meter span major permanent bridge with intermediate pier with steel superstructure (through type) on open foundation over Peepani-II Nallah at Km.32.200 (including casting of deck slab, wearing coat, kerbs and hand rails, drainage spout, procurement and fixing of bearing and expansion joints, painting, load testing completed in all respects) on Hayuliang-Metaliang-Chaglohagam Road under 1444 BCC/48 BRTF under Project Udayak in Arunachal Pradesh. Various dates were mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender. In terms with the said Critical Date Sheet incorporated in the Notice Inviting nd Tender, the submission of the bid started on 2nd of July, 2025 at 1200 hours and the last date for submission of the bid was 16th of July, 2025 at 1200 hours. The Technical Bid was to open on 17th of July, 2025 at 1200 hours and the opening of the Financial Bid was to be informed subsequently.

4. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of Clause 11 of the Notice Inviting Tender which is reproduced herein under:-

“11. Earnest money is not required to be attached with tender by the valid enlisted contractor with BRO who have submitted standing security deposit and MSME registered firms as per Rule 170 (i) of GFR 2017, but it is required from other contractors to be attached (Scanned copy) with Technical Bid for Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) in the shape of call Receipt/Term Deposit Receipt/Special Term Deposit Receipt in favour of Chief Engineer Project Udayak, C/o 99 APO obtained from any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank and having maturity/validity period 90 days more than the validity period of his offer.”

5. From a perusal of the above quoted Clause, it is seen that the earnest money is not required to be attached with tender by a valid enlisted contractor with BRO who has submitted standing security deposit and MSME registered firm as per Rule 170 (i) of the GFR, 2017. However, for other bidders, they are required to attach with the Technical Bid the Earnest Money Deposit for Rs.15,00,000/- in the shape of call receipt / term deposit receipt / special term deposit receipt favouring the Chief Engineer Project Udayak, C/o 99 APO obtained from a Nationalized / Scheduled Bank and having maturity / validity period of 90 days more than the validity period of his offer.

6. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of Clause 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender which stipulates that the scan copy of the original instrument in respect of earnest money, integrity pact duly signed on each page by the bidders as well as other are required to be uploaded along with the Technical Bid. The hard copies of all such documents should reach the Tender Inviting Authority in the sealed envelope within five days of the st bid submission end date i.e. on or before 21 July, 2025. In other words, the hard copies of the documents which are uploaded are required to be submitted within five days of the bid submission end date.

7. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to refer to Rule 170(i) of the GFR, 2017 which is in relation to Bid Security:-

Rule 170 Bid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top