Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 926
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.4185 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. K. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Gogoi, AAG Mr. N. Upadhyay, SC, Irrigation Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate
An ineligible bidder lacks the standing to challenge a public tender process. Furthermore, initiating multiple writ petitions without substantive legal challenges to specific official orders, especially after the completion of the project, constitutes an abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Tender process - Eligibility criteria - Locus standi - An ineligible bidder lacks the standing to challenge the award of a contract or the fairness of the tendering process. (Para 20)
(B) Judicial Process - Abuse of process - Filing of multiple writ petitions and accompanying interlocutory applications without challenging specific tender notifications or resultant work orders, particularly where the subject projects have reached completion, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and renders such petitions unsustainable. (Paras 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appearing in person, filed three separate writ petitions challenging the tendering process and subsequent work orders issued by government authorities. The petitions alleged irregularities and fraudulent practices in the issuance of contracts. During the proceedings, it was demonstrated that the petitioner did not meet the required eligibility criteria to participate in the subject tenders. Furthermore, it was established that the works under the disputed tenders had already been fully executed by the successful bidders.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner lacked the requisite standing to maintain the petitions as he was not an eligible participant in the bidding process. The court observed that the petitioner failed to challenge the specific tender notifications or the work orders issued, and given that the projects were already completed, the petitions were devoid of merit and served no actionable purpose.
Issues: The main issues were whether an ineligible bidder has the legal standing to challenge a public tender process and whether the persistent filing of multiple writ petitions without specific challenges to official orders constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Ratio Decidendi: Consistent with established principles, a party who is not an eligible bidder cannot challenge the grant of a public contract. Additionally, the filing of multiple legal proceedings that lack specific substantive challenges to administrative orders, especially post-completion of the contracted work, signifies an abuse of the court's process.
Result: Writ petitions and all associated interlocutory applications dismissed. No costs imposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of tender and procedural invitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding tender irregularities and lack of standing. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. assessment of petitioner's eligibility and project status. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. maintainability of petitions by ineligible bidders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. consequences of non-maintainable writ petitions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. P. K. Bhattacharjee, the Petitioner-in-Person. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the Standing Counsel of the Finance Department; Mr. U. Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Private Respondent.
2. The three writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order. The writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.4185/2023 was filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondent No.5, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat (Irrigation) to stop the tender work including allotment work and further sought for, in the interim, to stop the entire process including allotment if made till the disposal of the writ petition.
3. The material facts on the basis of which the said writ petition was filed is that the Respondent No.5, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat (Irrigation) had invited an Online Bid vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 15.06.2023 for a work "MDTWS (5 Points) at Rangamati Mouza under RIDF-XXVIII NABARD for the year 2022-23 amounting to Rs.1,48,50,098/- (approx.) under Bokakhat Khumtai Division (Irrigation), Bokakhat". The last date for submission of the Bid was on 13.07.2023 at 2:00 PM.
4. The Notice Inviting Tender included various terms and conditions in the various sections of the said Notice Inviting Tender. The “Instruction to the Bidders” which is Section-1 to the said Notice Inviting Tender stipulated the eligibility of the bidders, the qualification of the bidders and what the bidders should demonstrate to qualify for the contract.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner in writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.4185/2023 that the Respondent No.5, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat (Irrigation) had hurriedly allotted the work to the single bidder who participated in the said bid amounting to Rs.1,48,50,098/-.
6. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that when the Bid was only submitted by single participation, the authorities concerned ought to have cancelled the said tender process and should have refloated the tender. It is under such circumstances, the said writ petition was filed.
7. It is pertinent to take note of that the said writ petition was filed on 24.07.2023 and this Court vide an order dated 04.08.2023 issued notice, but did not pass any interim directions.
8. The Petitioner-in-Person filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No.6431 of 2023 seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to suspend the work order issued by the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat Irrigation Circle with immediate effect and to recall and/or otherwise forbear for giving effect to the formal work order issued by the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat dated 14.08.2023. The Petitioner had also sought for a direction as to why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat Irrigation Circle as well as the Private Respondent No.7 under the specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention. A perusal of the said writ petition would show that the Petitioner herein has referred to two tenders: one was the tender which is the subject matter of WP(C) No.4185/2023 and the second tender is another tender issued on 15.07.2023 for the work in “LIS from River Doyang and Greater Gomari Area under RIDF-XXVIII (NABARD) for the year 2022-23 amounting to Rs.4,91,39,319.00 (Approx) under
