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) 715

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
M/S Win Power Infracon LLP, Represented By Shri Amrendra Kumar Tiwari And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1632 of 2026
Decided On : 07-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.M. Mahanta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Pathak, Standing Counsel.

A letter of intent is a precursor to a contract and does not create a binding legal relationship. Mandatory tender conditions, such as bid capacity, must be satisfied at the time of bid submission; allowing subsequent compliance violates the principle of equality and fairness in public procurement.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Tender process - Fairness and equality - Bid capacity - Mandatory requirement.

(B) Contract Law - Letter of Intent - Nature and scope - A letter of intent is a precursor to a contract and not the contract itself - It creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance - A bidder's expectation of a contract is not a juridical entitlement. (Paras 52, 53)

(C) Tender Process - Technical responsiveness - Submission of documents - Allowing the submission of essential documents after the bid submission deadline violates the principle of equality and the level playing field among bidders - Essential criteria must be met at the time of bid submission. (Paras 60, 61)

Facts of the case:
A tender was issued for electrical infrastructure work. The petitioner participated in the bidding process but failed to provide mandatory supporting documents for bid capacity at the time of submission. The authority initially allowed the petitioner to submit documents later, but subsequently rejected the bid for failing to meet the required bid capacity. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the issuance and acceptance of a letter of intent constituted a binding contract.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the letter of intent did not constitute a binding contract as it was a mere expression of intent. Furthermore, the court held that the failure to meet mandatory bid capacity criteria at the time of submission rendered the bid non-responsive. Allowing the submission of essential documents after the bid deadline violated the principle of equality among bidders.

Issues: Whether the letter of intent constituted a binding contract and whether the rejection of the bid for failing to meet bid capacity criteria was arbitrary or unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi: A letter of intent is a precursor to a contract and does not create a vested right. Mandatory tender conditions, such as bid capacity, must be satisfied at the time of bid submission; allowing subsequent compliance violates the principle of equality and fairness in public procurement.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procurement terms and bid capacity calculation requirements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. sequence of events leading to bid rejection. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
3. petitioner's contention on contractual status and arbitrariness. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
4. respondent's position on loi status and technical essentiality. (Para 42 , 43)
5. a letter of intent is an inchoate precursor, not a contract. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. allowing late submission of essential terms violates article 14 fairness. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
7. writ petition dismissed, no merit in challenge. (Para 64)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. K.P. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the Speaking Order bearing Letter No. CGM (D&S)/APDCL/LAR/HPCL, Kamardanga/2025-26/88 dated 09.03.2026, as well as the Notice Inviting Tender/Re-tender vide NIT dated 10.03.2026, published on 11.03.2026, and seeking other consequential directions.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Respondent No. 1 through the Chief General Manager (D&S), APDCL issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 11.09.2025 for “Construction of 33 kV Dedicated Feeder from 220 kV Salakati GSS to HPCL Project at Kamardanga under Basugaon ESD under Deposit Work Scheme on Full Turnkey Mode. The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 12,49,12,131/- and the period for completion of the said project was 180 days from the date of issuance of the work order. The said Bid Document contained various Sections.

4. Section-I to the Bid Document is the Notice Inviting Tender which stipulated the Tender Download Start Date to be 12.09.2025; Pre-Bid Meeting Date up to 14:00 Hrs. on 16.09.2025; Bid Submission Start date on 19.09.2025; Bid Submission End Date up to 16:00 hours on 25.09.2025 and the Technical Bid Opening Date on 26.09.2025. It is categorically mentioned in Note No. 2 of Section-I of the Bid Document that the bids must be submitted electronically through e-Tender portal www.assamtenders.gov.in in 2 (two) parts as Techno-Commercial bid and Price bid. Apart from that, a copy of the technical bid has to be submitted in a sealed envelope subscribing: a) Tender No; b) Name of the bidder with full address. It further stipulated that only bidders who were found acceptable in Part-I Bid (technical) with adequate bid capacity, shall be considered for opening of the Price bid. The date and time of opening of the Part-II Bid (Price) shall be communicated to those bidders whose bids are qualified for opening.

5. Section-II of the Bid Document is with the heading “Tender Inviting Proposal”. The said Section-II contains various terms and conditions. Clause 5 of Section-II stipulated the “Basic Qualifying Requirements”. Sub-Clause A of Clause 5 of Section-II is in relation to “Technical”; Sub-Clause B of Clause 5 of Section-II relates to “Financial” and Sub-Clause C of Clause 5 of Section-II is the “Bid Capacity”. Clause 6 of Section-II stipulates the requirement of entering into an Agreement by the successful bidder within 7 (seven) days from the date of issuance of the detailed work order (LoA), failing which, the LoA shall be treated as cancelled without further communication from APDCL. Clause 6 of Section-II of the Bid Document being relevant is reproduced herein under:

6. Agreement:

The successful bidders shall have to enter into an agreement with APDCL within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of detailed work order (LOA) failing which the LOA shall be treated as cancelled without further communication from A

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