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) 843

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Thakur Das Barman S/o Geda Ram Barman – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP (C) Nos. 315, 1215 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : H. Buragohain, H. Borah, A. Devi
For the Respondents: R. Sharma, B.K. Goswami, S.K. Goswami

Public authorities cannot disqualify tender participants based on undeclared criteria absent from the tender notification. Doing so violates principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, as administrative procurement decisions must strictly align with the predefined, published terms and conditions of the tender process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Tender process - Rejection of bid - Arbitrariness - Fairness - A public authority is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions stipulated in a Notice Inviting Tender - Disqualification of a bidder based on reasons not mentioned in the tender document is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 14, 22, 23)

(B) Tender condition - Interpretation - Authority of the tenderer - While the project owner acts as the primary evaluator of tender terms, such interpretation must not be mala fide or perverse - A condition not explicitly stated in the tender document cannot be used as a ground for disqualification. (Paras 18, 19, 23)

Facts of the case:
A public authority issued a notification inviting bids for the settlement of a fishery. The petitioner submitted a bid in response to the notification. The technical evaluation committee rejected the petitioner’s bid on the ground that the petitioner had previously failed to execute a contract under a former tender process. The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that the tender document lacked any clause providing for such disqualification.

Findings of Court:
The court reviewed the records and the terms of the tender notification. It determined that the ground relied upon for rejecting the technical bid was not contained within the conditions of the tender. The court held that introducing new criteria for disqualification after the tender process had commenced was contrary to the principles of fairness and transparency, rendering the administrative action arbitrary and unreasonable.

Issues: Whether the authorities were justified in rejecting a technical bid based on a disqualification ground not listed in the tender notice, and whether such action violates the principle of non-arbitrariness in administrative decision-making.

Ratio Decidendi: Disqualification of a participant based on criteria not specified in the tender notice is arbitrary and violates the mandate of fair play. Public authorities must ensure that their procurement decisions strictly adhere to the published terms and conditions.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; the evaluation of the technical bid and the subsequent settlement order were set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed with a fresh evaluation or a new tender process.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of tender disputes and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 21)
2. interpretation of tender conditions and whether disqualification criteria must be explicitly stated. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. rejection of bids based on non-stipulated criteria is arbitrary and violates article 14. (Para 22 , 23)
4. consequential directions for setting aside settlement and fresh tender process. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. H Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. P Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘the AFDC’) and Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.1215/2023.

2. The two writ petitions are inter-related, and as such, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment & order.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions are that on 14.03.2022, the AFDC issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT), inviting bids for settlement of the Godadhar Meen Mahal in the District of Dhubri.

4. At the time of issuance of the said NIT, the minimum revenue which was fixed was Rs.15,89,372/-. Subsequent thereto, by the Corrigendum dated 22.03.2022, the minimum revenue was rectified and fixed at Rs.8,01,500/-. The petitioner being interested, participated in the said NIT and submitted a bid of Rs.1,19,00,000/- for a period of 7(seven) years. The petitioner was offered the settlement on 09.06.2022 and the petitioner was asked to deposit 25% of the revenue of the first year as security deposit and 25% of the revenue of the first year as first kist in the form of Demand Draft to be purchased in the name of “Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited” within 10 days from the receipt of the communication dated 09.06.2022. In addition to that, the petitioner was also asked to deposit a bank guarantee for the amount aforementioned before entering into the agreement. Subsequent thereto, a communication was issued by the Managing Director of the AFDC on 17.08.2022 stating inter alia, that in terms with the NIT No.1/2022 dated 14.03.2022, the minimum revenue was fixed at Rs.15,89,372/-, but in terms with the Corrigendum letter under reference, the earlier minimum revenue was rectified and fixed at Rs.8,01,500/-. The petitioner was, therefore, informed that the bank guarantee amount has been fixed at Rs.11,78,000/- and the petitioner was requested to enter into an agreement within 7(seven) days.

5. It is further seen that admittedly the petitioner did not enter into agreement, and resultantly, in terms with the communication dated 21.12.2022, the offer of settlement made in favour of the petitioner in respect to Godadhar Meen Mahal, vide the communication dated 09.06.2022 was cancelled and the possession of the Godadhar Meen Mahal was taken back from the petitioner. The petitioner, though submitted certain representation, but the said representation was not considered.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation of the offer of settlement vide the communication dated 21.12.2022. The resultant effect is that on 16.12.2022, a new NIT being NIT No.20/2022 was published by the AFDC authorities in respect to the same Fishery i.e. Godadhar Meen Mahal in the district of Dhubri.

7. The petitioner submitted his bid along with various other bidders in pursuance to the NIT No.20/22 dated 16.12.2022. On 12.01.2023, a decision was taken by the respondent authorities to reject the technical bid of the petitioner in the Evaluation of Technical Bids meeting held on 12.01.2023. Thereupon, another notice was issued on 14.01.2023 by the Managing Director, AFDC, inviting technically qualified bidders to be present on 18.01.2023 for opening of the price bid in the conference hall of the 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