The court granted interim relief by staying the opening of technical bids and allowing the petitioner to provide additional evidence regarding a site visit to ensure fair participation in the tender process.

ORDER

29.04.2026

Heard Mr. DP Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department.

2. The instant writ petition has been listed today for orders on the ground that service upon the respondent No. 4 either by way of speed post or by way of Dasti is not complete, inasmuch as no affidavit of service has been filed.

3. Mr. DP Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that taking into account the issues involved, the respondent No.4 may be struck off from the array of the parties.

4. Taking into account the above submission, the name of respondent No. 4 is struck off from the array of parties.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner shall file a fresh memo of parties before the Registry of this Court and the Registry shall, on the basis of the instant order as well as the fresh memo of parties make necessary corrections in the cause-title and update the same in the CIS.

6. Taking into account that the name of respondent No.4 has been struck off, the service is duly complete.

7. The case of the petitioner herein is that on account of not providing the Site Visit Certificate as requested by the petitioner to the respondent No.3, the petitioner could not submit its bid in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘the NIT’) dated 13.03.2026.

8. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had visited the said site, inasmuch as there is no mention in the communication dated 01.04.2026 issued to the respondent No.3 that he had visited the site for which he has sought for issuance of the Site Visit Certificate.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the tender which was issued on 13.03.2026 is actually a re-tender, inasmuch as, in respect to the same work, a tender was issued on 07.11.2025 and the petitioner, in pursuance to the said tender dated 07.11.2025, visited the site and had further obtained the Site Visit Certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was adjudged as the L1 bidder in respect to the said bid submitted in pursuance to the NIT dated 07.11.2025. However, the said tender was cancelled.

10. Taking into account the above submission, it is the opinion of this Court that as the said aspect is not noticeable from the records, liberty should be granted to the petitioner to file an additional affidavit bringing along the Site Visit Certificate, the Photographs and other documents.

11. This Court has enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether the technical bids have been opened. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department submitted that on account of the Model Code of Conduct, which is operational till 04.05.2026, the said technical bids have not been opened in respect to the tender, in question.

12. List this matter on 06.05.2026.

13. This Court directs the respondent authorities not to open the technical bids in respect to the tender dated 13.03.2026 till 06.05.2026.

14. The respondents herein shall also apprise this Court as to whether the petitioner had submitted the document which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and if so, as to why the petitioner was not issued the Site Verification Report.

15. List accordingly.