Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12072
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J
PURBANCHAL BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C)/2414/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: TJ Mahanta, P Sarma
For the Respondents: B Gogoi
A writ petition challenging the rejection of a technical bid may be withdrawn to allow the petitioner to re-file a more specific challenge based on the detailed technical evaluation criteria provided by the authorities.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent authorities to declare its technical bid non-responsive without providing reasons. Upon inquiry by the court, it was revealed that the bid failed to comply with Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders, specifically regarding the proper signing of the technical bid, as evidenced by the technical evaluation sheet. The primary issue was whether the technical bid was correctly evaluated as non-responsive. After reviewing the technical evaluation sheet, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the current petition to potentially re-file a challenge specifically targeting the technical bid evaluation process. The instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal, with the liberty to approach the court again if advised.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. technical bids must strictly adhere to the instructions to bidders, including formal requirements like proper signing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. a party may seek to withdraw a petition to refine the legal challenge based on newly disclosed evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. withdrawal of a writ petition does not necessarily preclude the petitioner from initiating fresh legal proceedings on the same cause of action. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner’s bid to be technically non-responsive vide the communication dated 16.02.2026 and that too without assigning any reason.
2. This Court had enquired with Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam as well as the learned Standing Counsel, PWD as to why the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be technically non-responsive. The learned Standing Counsel, PWD submitted that the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be non-responsive in view of the bid having not been submitted in terms with Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders of the tender document.
3. A perusal of the Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders shows that a detailed evaluation of the technical bids would be carried out on various aspects which included as to whether the technical bid had been properly signed. A copy of the technical evaluation sheet has been provided before this Court which is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’.
4. A copy of the said technical evaluation sheet had also been provided to Mr. TJ Mahanta the learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner.
5. Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner would be well advised to withdraw the instant writ petition and again re-file by challenging the said technical bid evaluation carried out, if so advised.
6. He, however, submits that the withdrawal of the writ petition should not affect the cause of action for which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
7. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands closed on withdrawal.
8. Withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude and/or prejudice the petitioner to again approach this Court, if so advised.
