Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 10110
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ, Arun Dev Choudhury, J
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS – Appellant
Versus
M/S BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP AND 4 ORS B – Respondent
WA/255/2023 | WA/385/2023 | WA/383/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H Gupta
For the Respondents: M Biswas, S K Das
When the subject matter of a tender dispute, specifically the construction works, has already been completed by other concessionaires, further adjudication of the dispute becomes an academic exercise and the appeals may be disposed of.
Headnote:The case involves a tender dispute regarding the financial eligibility of a bidder for earthwork and bridge construction projects. The respondents' technical bid was rejected on the grounds that they did not meet the requirement of having received contractual payments equal to at least 150% of the tender value. The writ court previously allowed the respondents' challenge, observing that the appellants misinterpreted tender clauses and directed a re-evaluation of the respondents' credentials by considering their history prior to their incorporation as a Limited Liability Partnership. The primary issue was whether the financial eligibility of the respondents should be evaluated based on their full credentials up to 13.02.2020 rather than limiting it to the date of LLP incorporation. The appellants contended that the Single Judge misinterpreted Clauses 9 and 10 of the tender documents and that the decision would prejudice existing bidders and delay essential public projects. The appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Linked Case : WA/385/2023
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
GENERAL MANAGER NF RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI PIN 781011
VERSUS
M/S BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP AND 3 ORS
LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT AMBAGAN ROAD
BYE LANE
NEAR MADHUBAN FACTORY
TEZPUR-784001 IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR
ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER SHRI BABUL
NATH
S/O SRI SHRI MANORANJAN NATH
R/O VILL- POLICE LINE
TEZPUR
SONITPUR-784001.
------------
Advocate for : MR H GUPTA
Advocate for : MR. M BISWAS appearing for M/S BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP AND 3 ORS
Linked Case : WA/383/2023
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011.
2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER/CON-3
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011.
3: THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011.
VERSUS
M/S BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP AND 4 ORS A
A LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
AMBAGAN ROAD
BYE LANE
NEAR MADHUBAN FACTORY
TEZPUR-784001
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM AND REP. BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER SRI BABUL NATH
S/O. SRI MANORANJAN NATH
R/O. VILL. POLICE LINE
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
-784001.
2:BABUL NATH
S/O. SHRI MANORANJAN NATH
VILL. POLICE LINE
TEZPUR
SONITPUR-784001
ASSAM.
3:SHARMISTHA NATH
D/O. ROMEN DEV NATH
R/O. TEZPUR TOWN
WARD NO.12
SONITPUR.
4:PRANAB NATH
S/O. MANORANJAN NATH
VILL. EX-POLICE LINE
TEZPUR-784001
SONITPUR
ASSAM.
5:M/S M.K GUPTA AND COMPANY
REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. M K GUPTA
CARE OF M.K. GUPTA AND CO.
SEWAK ROAD
SILIGURI
WEST BANGAL
PIN-734001.
------------
For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. H. Gupta, CGC
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Biswas, Advocate
We have heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants/Union of India and others, and Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents.
This case relates to a tender dispute between the Indian Railways and the respondents.
The firm of the respondent No. 2 was earlier a sole proprietorship firm, which later became a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) firm.
A tender was issued by the N.F. Railway (Construction wing) in the year 2021 for three major works (earthwork, construction of bridge and embankment on the new B.G. line in Assam). The respondents had participated in the tender process, but their technical bid was rejected on the ground of their not meeting the financial eligibility requirement of having received contractual payments in the last three financial years, along with current year, which was equal to at least 150% of the tender value, as required under the tender conditions.
Such rejection was challenged by the respondents vide three writ petitions, claiming that the tender clauses were misinterpreted by the appellants herein and their past credentials were wrongly ignored. It was thus urged on behalf of the respondents that the rejection of their technical bid was unfair, more so, for the reason of their having quoted a price which was much lower.
The writ petitions were allowed and it was observed by the writ court that the appellants ought to re-evaluate the financial eligibility of the respondents by taking into account their full credentials up to 13.02.2020, instead of limiting it only till its incorporation date of 09.04.2017. It was directed by the writ court that in case, after the re-do of the entire exercise, the respondents were found to have satisfied the financial eligibility criteria and the price quoted by them is lower, then the remaining works must be handed over to them.
This judgment of the writ court was promptly put to challenge by the appellants on the ground that the learned Single Judge had misinterpreted the clear wordings of Clauses 9 and 10 of the tender documents and that such adjudication would only cause prejudice to the already selected lowest bidders, who had already started their works, and it would also put on hold the important public projects.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge was stayed.
This Court today has been informed that in the meanwhile, the works allotted to the concessionaires have already
