NAFR

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

29.04.2026

1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General along with Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate Geneal appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the disqualification e-mail issued to the petitioner by Respondent no. 4.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority may allow the participation in Tender no, 186416 NIT No. 08/SAC/25-26, Dated 06.03.2026.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the "Bid Capacity Document" of the petitioner accordance with clause 1.3 of the NIT and applicable law.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities open & evaluate the technical bid of the petitioner.

10.5 That, That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities if technical bid of the Petitioner is found to be L1 then he may be declared L1 in place of the Respondent no. 6

10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

3. Facts of the case are that the respondent Department issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for civil works, for which the petitioner, being fully eligible, submitted his bid within time along with all requisite documents in Envelope ‘A’ and ‘B’, duly complying with all conditions including Clause 1.3 relating to bid capacity. The petitioner has substantial experience in execution of similar civil engineering works and has successfully completed projects for the respondent department. All required certificates, including pre-bid qualification and work experience, were duly submitted and are verifiable as per the NIT. Despite full compliance with the tender conditions, the petitioner was arbitrarily disqualified without any specific reason being communicated. The impugned e-mail is vague and does not disclose the grounds of disqualification.

4. Upon receiving the impugned communication, the petitioner immediately submitted a detailed representation along with additional supporting documents; however, the respondents failed to consider the same and proceeded with the tender process. The respondent authorities thereafter declared Respondent No. 6 as L1, despite the petitioner quoting a significantly lower bid amount (₹23.29 crore approx.) compared to Respondent No. 6 (₹25.00 crore approx.), resulting in a substantial loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner’s disqualification does not fall within any of the grounds specified under Clause 2.1.6 of the NIT, and no deficiency or false information has been attributed to him.

5. The petitioner has previously participated in similar tenders with identical documentation and has been declared successful, demonstrating consistency and credibility in his qualifications. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no reasons for disqualification have been furnished and relevant materials have been ignored. The impugned action is also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it denies a level playing field and unfairly excludes the petitioner from the tender process. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the doctrine of level playing field, which mandates that all similarly placed bidders must be afforded equal and fair opportunity in matters of public contracts. The petitioner, being fully eligible, has been unfairly excluded. It is contended that the disqualification of the petitioner is ex facie illegal, as no deficiency or def