Upholding Administrative Expertise: Gauhati High Court Rules on Tender Finality

In a significant ruling for government procurement processes in Assam, the Gauhati High Court has set aside a judgment that previously struck down tender awards by the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, reinforced the principle that courts must adopt a restrained approach when reviewing the decisions of expert tender committees.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The litigation originated from public tenders issued for the construction of "Assam Type Sub-Centre Buildings," including electrification and sanitation works in the Nalbari district. The tender followed a standard two-bid system—technical and financial.

Several contractors emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidders by quoting rates more than 15% below the current Detailed Schedule Rate (DSR). Following the procedural requirements of the bid document, these bidders submitted rate analyses and photographic evidence. After a field verification conducted by departmental engineers, the Bid Process Management Committee recommended the awarding of work, and formal work orders were issued on January 6, 2024.

An unsuccessful bidder, Balen Roy Medhi, filed multiple writ petitions challenging these awards, alleging procedural collusion, improper site verification, and the usage of identical, non-geo-tagged photographic evidence. A learned Single Judge had initially found merit in these claims, directing the work to cease.

Arguments on Appeal

The appellants, represented by the State and the selected contractors, argued that the lower court had acted as an appellate authority, exceeding the scope of judicial review. They maintained that the Bid Process Management Committee, comprised of domain experts, had strictly followed Clause 2.A.(g) of the bid document.

Conversely, the respondent argued that the State’s verification process was a sham, asserting that there was no "real" scrutiny of the documents—specifically targeting the validity of GSTIN documentation and the quality of evidence provided by the successful bidders.

The High Court’s Legal Analysis

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge’s decision was legally unsustainable. Drawing upon Supreme Court precedents like Afcon Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. A.R.M. Dev Prabha , the High Court emphasized that the judiciary lacks the technical expertise to second-guess the appraisal of bids by a specialized committee.

The Court noted that courts should only intervene when the decision-making process is demonstrably tainted by mala fides or unreasonableness. In this case, the court found no such evidence to justify overturning the department's decision, especially given that the projects were already significantly underway.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the nature of judicial intervention:

• "The judgment impugned smacked of an appellate order against the decision making of the tender floating authority, especially, the Committee which had evaluated the bids and which Committee comprised of experts in the domain subject."
• "We hold the interference by the learned Single Judge, at that stage, on the grounds referred to above with the work order, to be wholly unjustified."
• "Questioning the verification report as collusive clearly appears to be an overarching allegation of an unsuccessful bidder, which ought not to have been taken into account for interfering with the work orders."

Final Verdict and Implications

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and directed the contractors to complete the remaining work according to the original specifications and the extended timeline.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to civil contractors and government departments alike: provided that the tender process adheres to the established rules and includes a bona fide evaluation by relevant experts, the court is unlikely to disrupt established work orders. It reaffirms the legal position that commercial and administrative procurements demand a high threshold of proof for interference, preserving the efficiency of public projects.