Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010098302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2496/2025 M/S HARISH IRON STORE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D-2/91, PHASE 2 MAYAPURI, NEW DELHI- 110064. REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SUBRAT HAZARIKA, S/O- ATUL KRISHNA HAZARIKA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 190, JUGAL BAZAR, GANESHGURI CHARIALI, P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, PIN- 781006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING AND NH) DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (BUILDING) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD MEDICAL COLLEGES AND HOSPITALS CONSTRUCTION DIVISION FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE DIRECTOR SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-03 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, MR. P K DEKA,MS I KRISHNATRAIYA,C S SARKAR,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. R. KARIM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 13.06.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted his hard copy of the bid on 01.04.2025, pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 24.03.2025 for the work “Dismantling of Existing Structure of R.G. Barua Road Sports Complex, Guwahati, Assam, with an estimated value of work of Rs. 2,54,48,453/-“. The last date of submission of the bids was 01.04.2025 before 2 PM. 3. The petitioner’s case is that though the petitioner had submitted the bid security amount [Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)], prior to 2 PM on 01.04.2025, by way of net banking and the amount had been credited into the account of the respondent No. 4, the scanned copy and the hard copy of the EMD could be furnished to the respondent authorities only on the next date, i.e., on 02.04.2025, on account of the 1st of April, being a bank holiday, as it was Page No.# 3/4 declared as Account Closing Day. He submits that as it was not the fault of the petitioner in not being able to obtain the hard copy of the EMD from the bank on a holiday, the petitioner could not upload a scanned copy of the same on 01.04.2025 and had to submit the hard copy of the EMD on the next date only. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner was not at fault in not being able to upload his bid online on the last date of submission of the bid, the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s hard copy of the bid. He submits that though the petitioner had submitted a representation to the said effect on 15.04.2025, the same has not been decided by the respondents. 5. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, on the other hand, submits that three online bids were received on 01.04.2025 along with three hard copies of their technical bids. One separate hard copy of the technical bid was received, but without the same being uploaded online. Thus, in terms of the terms and conditions of the NIT, only the online bids (technical) of the three bidders were opened on 05.04.2025. He submits that when the tender conditions prescribed opening of the online (technical) bids only and hard copies were called for to maintain the office records and also to crosscheck the online documents, the non-submission of the online bid by the petitioner did not enclothe the petitioner with any right to have the hard copy of his bid to be considered. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The only issue to be decided is as to whether the bidders were required to submit their technical and financial bids online. Page No.# 4/4 8. Clause 3 of the NIT states as follows:- “Online submission of technical and financial Bid is mandatory. Manual submission (without online submission) of bid will be considered as non- responsive.” 9. On a perusal of the above Clause 3, it is clear that it was mandatory for bidders to submit the technical and financial bid online. As the petitioner had not submitted his technical bid online, this Court does not find any infirmity in the respondents not considering the technical bid of the petitioner. Further, when three other bidders could submit their technical bids online within time, there could not have been any reason for the petitioner not to have submitted his technical bid online, prior to the last date of submission of bids. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant