The court declined interim relief in a tender dispute where the petitioner failed to establish that it would be the successful bidder if the competitor were disqualified and where material correspondence was suppressed from the court.

ORDER

Date : 09.07.2026

Heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC appearing for respondent nos.5 to 7.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company had participated in NIT dated 21.02.2026 for the work of “Performance Based Contract of NH-39 (New NH-129) from Km 30 to Km 46 (L=16 Km), Km 54 to Km 96(L=42 Km) and Km 103 to Km 106 (L=3 Km) for the Year 2025-26 for Five Years under PWD, Golaghat NH Division in the State of Assam. (Job No. PBMC/129/AS/2025-26/290)”. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the allegation that it had failed to satisfactorily maintain earlier highway maintenance contract. However, the technical bid of the respondent no.4 was found technically responsive. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations dated 13.06.2026, 19.06.2026 and 02.07.2026, which was not appended to. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.4 did not make disclosure of 2 (two) pending contract awarded to them. Accordingly, by referring to clause 4.11 of the NIT, it is submitted that even though the bidders meet the qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if there was non-disclosure of material facts of existing contracts. Accordingly, it is submitted that this was a clear case of nepotism and favouritism to technically disqualify the petitioner and to accept the bid of the respondent no.4 though they had suppressed material facts by not disclosing 2 (two) contracts, though that was exposed by the petitioner.

3. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Sanjay Kr. Singh v. Purbanchal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1374.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that as it is a vacation Court today, his objection is for the purpose of grant of any interim order on three counts. First on the ground that there is no positive statement in the writ petition that if the bid of respondent no.4 is disqualified, the petitioner would be entitled to be awarded with the contract. Secondly, it is submitted that the representation of the petitioner was responded to by the Chief Engineer, NH Works, Assam on 19.06.2026 at 02.00 PM through email, which has been suppressed by the petitioner. Thirdly, on receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the Bid Evaluation Committee was convened on 19.06.2026 and on taking into consideration the two left out ongoing works awarded to respondent no.4, the re-calculated bid capacity of respondent no.4 is much higher than the minimum required bid capacity of Rs.57.41 Crore.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bid Evaluation Committee was not authorized as per the tender documents to call for any clarification and to re-assess the bid capacity. Moreover, it is submitted that as per paragraph-10 of the case of Sanjay Kr. Singh (supra), the PWD respondents had taken a contrary stand that by not disclosing all the ongoing commitments by the Director of the petitioner company, the petitioner had violated the conditions of clause 2.6.2 of the bid document in that case, which speaks about misrepresentation on part of the bidder. It is also submitted that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on technical ground and therefore, they are seeking a relief of technical evaluation of their bid.

6. Issue notice including notice on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 10.08.2026.

7. The petitioner