Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1103
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Ashutosh Kumar, C.J., Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
Diganta Borah, S/O Late Sarat Chandra Borah – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Principal Secretary Govt Of Assam, Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Department– Respondent
WA 386 of 2024, WA 381 of 2024, WA 388 of 2024, WA 393 of 2024, WA 397 of 2024, WA 41 of 2025, WA 427 of 2024, WA 428 of 2024, WA 82 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Tender and Procurement
Headnote
(B) Tender Process - Evaluation of bids - Role of expert committees - Where a committee of experts is tasked with evaluating technical bids, rate justifications, and conducting field verification, their findings are generally afforded deference. A court should not interfere with such administrative decisions merely because another view is possible or because an unsuccessful bidder raises objections, unless there is clear evidence of procedural illegality or manifest bias. (Paras 15, 23)
Facts of the case:
A public tender was issued for infrastructure construction works using a two-bid system. The successful bidders offered rates below the prescribed schedule of rates, as permitted by the tender document, provided they submitted detailed justifications and underwent physical verification. The tender committee conducted such verification and awarded the work. An unsuccessful participant challenged the work orders, alleging procedural lapses and collusion. A lower court set aside the tender awards, prompting the current set of appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the expert committee followed the prescribed tender conditions by verifying the justification for low rate quotes and performing physical site inspections. The allegations of collusion and improper scrutiny were found to be unsubstantiated. The court observed that at the stage where a significant portion of the work had already been executed, judicial interference without a strong finding of perversity was inappropriate.
Issues: The main issues were the extent of judicial restraint required in matters of public tender and whether the lower court was justified in overturning the administrative decision of an expert committee regarding bidder qualification and rate justification.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must exercise restraint in tender matters. Interference is validated only when the process is demonstrably arbitrary or illegal. Since the tender authority adhered to the terms of the bid document and the decision-making process was backed by technical evaluation, the court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the experts.
Result: Appeals allowed; judgment set aside; directions issued to complete the work as per the tender stipulations.
For the Appellant :Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, Advocates, Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Kalita, Advocate, Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate overview of the challenge against a single judge's order concerning public tender work allotments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedure regarding bid evaluation and the validation of sub-15% dsr quotes in public tenders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. judicial review of tender processes based on documentation scrutiny and physical verification protocols. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. arguments concerning judicial restraint vs. interference in commercial tender awarding decisions. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court holds that premature judicial interference in ongoing tender works is unjustified where procedures were followed. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.
These set of writ appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, learned Advocates for the appellants in WA No.386/2024; WA No.388/2024; WA No.397/2024; WA No.427/2024 and WA No.428/2024; Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the appellants in WA Nos.381/2024; WA No.393/2024; WA No.41/2025 and WA No.82/2025; and Mr. J. Kalita, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 in WA No.386/2024; WA No.388/ 2024; WA No.397/2024; WA No.427/2024 and WA No.428/2024 and for respondent No.1 in WA No.381/2024; WA No.393/2024; WA No.41/2025 & WA No.82/2025.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1069/2024 and connected writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court has opined that the process adopted for allotting the works to the appellants in WA No.386/2024; WA No.388/2024; WA No.397/2024; WA No.427/2024 and WA No.428/2024, was not in accordance with law and thus has directed that the work orders dated 06.01.2024 be not acted upon henceforth. However, it was clarified that since the work was carried out against such work orders, the balance work should be given to another eligible bidder, who would qualify for the work pursuant to the tender process.
4. In one of the writ petitions [WP(C) No.998/2024] before the Court, since there was no progress against the work order, it was directed that the work be allotted to the eligible bidder in the same tender process.
The afore-noted judgment was passed in five of the writ petitions.
5. These cases involve a public tender issued by the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam for works under RIDF-XXVII, relating to construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Building with Electrification, Water Supply and Sanitary Works etc., in the district of Nalbari.
The estimated cost of the work was Rs.33,71,000/- with a completion period of 180 days only. The tender followed a two-bid system, technical and financial.
6. The appellants in WA No.386/2024; WA No.388/2024; WA No.397/2024; WA No.427/2024 and WA No.428/2024, who are registered contractors, participated in the tender process and emerged as the lowest bidders. The rate offered by them was more than 15% below the current Detailed Schedule Rate (DSR).
7. Clause 2.A.(g) of the bid document specified that any bidder who quotes beyond 15% below the DSR must submit with their bids the detailed justification, rate analysis and photographic evidence of its infrastructure and the on-going projects. Such bids could be rejected by the Bid Process Management Committee if the justification for quoting such a lower rate was found incorrect, or that the claim of such bidder is not found to be correct on physical verification.
8. According to the appellants in WA No.386/2024; WA No.388/2024; WA No.397/2024; WA No.427/2024 and WA No.428/2024, they had submitted the required documents for the evaluation of their bids.
9. After preliminary technical evaluation, the Bid Process Management Committee had directed a physical verification by an Engineer of the Department, who had submitted a report confirming the correctness of the claims of the appellants in the afore-n
