GAHC010024522026

2026:GAU-AS:6120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/711/2026 MS ASSAM ELECTRIC STORE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM , HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT R.N.B.

ROAD, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION KOKRAJHAR, DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BIMAL KUMAR DUGAR, AGE-55 YRS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT , P.W.D, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D.

BUILDING ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. ELECT.

ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

4:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERP.W.D.

ELECT.

ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03

5:SHREE GAUTAM CONSTRUCTION CO LTD BILASPARAP.O. P.S. BILASPARADISTRICT DHUBRIASSAM 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DUBEY, MS N B KAYASTHA,MS. A B KAYASTHA,MR. A N I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

05.05.2026 Heard Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. It is pertinent to mention that service of notice in respect of the respondent No. 5 stands complete in terms of the orders of this Court dated 18.03.2026 as well as Lawazima Court dated 13.03.2026. However, none appeared for the respondent No. 5, on call.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent authorities rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner in connection with the NIT dated 16.12.2025 floated for certain electrical works at Golaghat Medical College & Hospital, Golaghat.

4. The brief facts are that the petitioner, claiming to be a Class-I contractor engaged in electrical works and registered with the Assam Public Works Department as well as APDCL, participated in the tender floated by respondent No. 3 vide NIT dated 16.12.2025. The works offered were:

(i) Construction of a 33 KV dedicated feeder from Tetelitol 132/33 KV Grid to Golaghat Medical College & Hospital;

(ii) Construction of one 33 KV dedicated feeder bay at 132 GSS AEGCL, Golaghat; and (iii) Load security payment to APDCL.

5. The value of the works was Rs. 14,50,55,035/- and the time for completion was 12 months. The last date for submission of the technical bid was 31.12.2025. The petitioner submitted its bid within time. Along with the petitioner, four other bidders also participated, including respondent No. 5. The Bid Evaluation Committee, in its meeting dated 21.01.2026, rejected the technical bids of the petitioner and two others and accepted the bid of respondent No. 5 as the sole technically qualified bidder.

Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner did not initially submit documents relating to the joint venture, such documents were subsequently submitted and were available with the authorities at the time of evaluation. It is contended that the authorities ought to have considered the same and determined the petitioner’s share in the joint venture work.

7. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, submits that the tender conditions prohibit submission of documents after the bid deadline. The petitioner submitted additional JV documents on 09.01.2026, which was beyond the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the financial bid was opened on 22.01.2026, respondent No. 5 was declared L-1, and the work order was issued on

12.02.2026.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

9. The issue for determination is whether the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is arbitrary and, if so, whether any interference is warranted.

10. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to the relevant terms of the t