Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9958
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ, Arun Dev Choudhury, J
SHRI PARASH KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL OF CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. – Respondent
WA/164/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners:PETITIONER IN PERSON
For the Respondents: SC, IRRIGATION
An ineligible bidder, whose contractor registration has expired or not been renewed, lacks the locus standi to challenge the tender process or the award of a contract.
Headnote:The appellant challenged tender processes initiated by the Irrigation Department, alleging improper allotment to single bidders, collusion with private respondents, and questioning the competence of the Superintending Engineer under the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2022. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of maintainability, noting that the appellant's contractor registration had not been renewed for the relevant financial years, rendering him an ineligible bidder. The primary issue was whether an ineligible bidder possesses the locus standi to challenge the award of a contract. The court held that since the appellant's registration as a Class-I contractor had expired and remained un-renewed, he lacked the eligibility to participate in the tender process and consequently had no enforceable legal right to assail the process or the work orders. The court further observed that the failure to challenge the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the work orders, coupled with the fact that the works were already completed, made the challenge academic and an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the intra-court appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations regarding tender manipulation, single-bidder allotment, and administrative competence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. ineligibility of a bidder due to non-renewal of registration precludes locus standi. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. affirmation that lack of challenge to foundational orders and completion of work renders the petition academic. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ appeal for lack of merit. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER
(A.D. Choudhury, J).
1. We have heard Mr. Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee, appellant-in-person. We have also heard Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department, representing the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4185/2023, along with other connected writ petitions.
3. The appellant filed the three writ petitions being WP(C) No. 4185/2023, WP(C) No. 2485/2024 and WP(C) No. 6431/2023, which were dismissed by the impugned common judgment and order dated 24.04.2026, primarily on the ground of maintainability.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant instituted these three writ petitions questioning two tender processes initiated by the Irrigation Department.
5. In WPC 4185/2023, it was alleged that the Superintending Engineer, Jorhat (Irrigation) Circle, had improperly proceeded with a tender dated 15.06.2023 despite there being only a single bidder. According to the appellant, in the absence of competitive participation, the authorities ought to have cancelled and re-floated the tender rather than hastily allotting it to the sole bidder.
6. Subsequently, WP(C) 6431/2023 was filed assailing another tender dated 15.07.2023. The grievance projected therein was that the authorities, in collusion with the private respondent, had manipulated the tender process and granted the contract in violation of settled norms governing public procurement. The appellant further sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned departmental authorities and the successful bidder, alleging conspiracy and abuse of official position.
7. Thereafter, a third writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2485/2024, was instituted challenging the competence of the Superintending Engineer to issue tenders in view of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2022 and sought cancellation of the consequential order issued pursuant thereto.
8. During pendency, several interlocutory applications were also filed by the appellant, seeking a stay of execution of the works, etc., which was not granted at any point in time.
9. Upon consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the learned Single Judge first examined the maintainability of the writ petitions.
10. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant had not specifically challenged either the NIT or the work orders issued in favour of the successful bidders, despite admittedly being aware of the same.
11. The Court further recorded that the works pursuant to the tenders had already been completed and no interim order had ever been passed staying execution of the contract.
12. Most importantly, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of communications produced by the department, found that the appellant was not an eligible bidder during the relevant financial years, as his contractor registration had not been renewed.
13. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant lacks locus to challenge the tender process. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Raunaq International –VS- I.V.R construction Limited reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, that an ineligible bidder cannot maintain a challenge to award a contract.
14. Accordingly, the learned Single Ju
