Tendering authorities have discretion in setting eligibility criteria, which must be clear and cannot be deemed vague or arbitrary unless proven otherwise, emphasizing principles of fairness and natural justice in procurement processes.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Mittal and Mr. V. Pahuja, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in both the writ petition. I have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the Respondent Authorities in both the writ petitions. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Khanna and Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.6625/2025.

PREFACE :

2. Both the writ petitions are inter related. In WP(C) No.5051/2025, the Petitioner have assailed Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 contained in the Request For Proposal (for short ‘RFP’) issued by the Respondent Authorities and in the alternative have sought for declaration that Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 in the RFP did not disqualify such bidders who may have experienced history of any collapse in respect of any of the projects in the last 3 years on account of force majeure conditions and/or for not determined and adjudicated fault of theirs. Declaration was also sought for that the Petitioner is not disqualified under the terms of the Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 in the RFP on account of the Sultanganj incident. The Petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to quash the rejection by the Respondents, the bid of the Petitioner in respect of the RFP dated 19.05.2025, if done during the pendency of the writ petition on the basis of the impugned Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 as well as also to quash any action(s) or steps undertaken by the Respondents during the pendency of the writ petition to further the tendering process arising out of the RFP dated 19.05.2025 without considering the bid of the Petitioner and restore status quo ante.

3. The Petitioner in the interim also sought for certain directions i.e. stay the effect, implementation and operation of Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 in the RFP dated 19.05.2025 and directions be issued upon the Respondents to consider the bid submitted by the Petitioner in pursuance to the RFP dated 19.05.2025 on its own merits and not to consider the Sultanganj incident as a reason for disqualification of the petitioner from the said tender. The Petitioner also sought for interim directions that the Respondents be restrained from taking any action to further the tender process in respect of the RFP dated 19.05.2025 without considering the bid of the Petitioner.

4. It is pertinent to take note of that while the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.5051/2025 was pending, the Petitioner learnt that its technical bid was rejected on 28.10.2025 as non-responsive in terms with Clause 2.2.2.2 and Clause 2.2.2.4.iii.ii.2 of the RFP. The Petitioner being aggrieved preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6274/2025. When the said writ petition was moved before this Court on 07.11.2025 with the records of WP(C) No.5051/2025, it was informed by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the Letter of Acceptance had already been issued in favour of the Respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.6625/2025 on 06.11.2025. The said writ petition being WP(C) No.6274/2025 was withdrawn and liberty wa