HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.591 of 2025 M/S United Construction, represented by its sole proprietor- Sri Krishnendu Maity, Son of late Bankim Behari Maity, of Village- Vidyasagar, PO-

Kakdwip, District- South 24 Pargana, West Bengal .........Petitioner(s);

Versus

1. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Public Works Department (R&B), New Capital Complex, PO-

Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura

2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), New Capital Complex, PO-Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura

3. Superintending Engineer, 4^th Circle, Public Works Department (R&B), Mantribari Road, PO- Agartala, District- West Tripura

4. Executive Engineer, Government of Tripura, Sonamura Division, Public Works Department (R&B), PO- Sonamura, District- Sepahijala Tripura .........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirban Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Haridas Datta, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order

26/02/2026

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking damages for cancellation of a work allotted under a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dt.06.12.2022 to the petitioner pursuant to an NIT dt.28.09.2022, which was cancelled on 12.01.2023.

2. The order of cancellation dt.12.01.2023, titled as a “Corrigendum” refers to the said decision having been taken in the 1^st meeting of the Technical/Financial Bid Evaluation Committee.

3. The said corrigendum dt.12.01.2023 did not give any reason for the said cancellation.

4. Petitioner then filed WP(C) No.565/2023 challenging the same.

5. The Writ Petition was allowed on 22.05.2024. This Court held that a „legally binding contract‟ had come into existence pursuant to a conscious decision of the competent authority, that the LOA and Letter for Commencement (LOC) of work had also been issued in favour of the petitioner, and once a „legally binding contract‟ came into existence, the respondents could not have revoked it or cancelled it without proper notice. The corrigendum dt.12.01.2023 was quashed by the Division Bench, and liberty was given to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after due opportunity to the petitioner to show cause within a reasonable time.

6. It is also not in dispute that on 11.05.2023, the work in question had already been allotted to another third party contractor, by name Sri Kanu Lal Saha.

7. This was admittedly done without issuing a fresh tender after cancellation of LOA given to petitioner on 12.01.2023 and even though the said Sri Kanu Lal Saha‟s financial bid was Rs.4,75,186/- more than that financial bid of the petitioner.

8. This fact was not apparently disclosed by the respondents in their pleadings in WP(C) 565/2023 and also not orally when the Writ was disposed of on 22.05.2024.

9. After the said decision was rendered, the 4^th respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dt.28.06.2024 to the petitioner mentioning that as per DNIeT condition, valid copy of enlistment of appropriate class registered with PWD/TTAADC/MES/CPWD/Railway/Government Organization of other State and Central Government has to be submitted by petitioner along with tender, that the said document was not found with the tender documents, that this was indicated in the committee decision taken on 03.12.2022, that the 4^th respondent‟s office had asked the petitioner to submit the shortfall document referred to supra by 25.01.2023, but petitioner submitted the same document dt.20.03.2013 which he had submitted along with the tender; and the petitioner should show cause why the LOA dt.06.12.2022 and LOC dt.21.12.2022, should not be cancelled.

10. Petitioner submitted a reply on 13.08.2024 to the same. In the said reply, he pointed out that he had uploaded through the e-procurement online system Trade Registration No.655 as FORM 11 along with other documents, as mentioned in the bid documents; that procedure for enlistment of contractor