Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010179302025 2025:GAU-AS:16207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4627/2025 RAJIB HAQUE S/O SAHIDUL HAQUE R/O SOUTH HAIBARGAON GHUTLAIPATTY HUSSAIN ALI HAZARIKA ROAD PS NAGAON SADAR DIST NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BISWANATH DIST BISWANATH PIN 784176 4:M/S VIVEK TRANSPORT AGENCY A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM WITH ITS REGD. ADDRESS AT SOHSARAI THANA SOHSARAI DIST- NALANDA STATE- BIHAR PIN-803118 WHICH IS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR KUMAR VIVEK AGE 40 YEARS S/O ANIL KUMAR PRESENTLY R/O VILL. JHAGRARPAR PT-III KHALILPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSA BEFORE Page No.# 2/5 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. P. Borah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam : Ms. R. Devi, Advocate : Mr. A. R. Tahabildar, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.11.2025 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. R. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court assailing the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.08.2025 whereby the Petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner’s Solvency Certificate was issued before the NIT was published. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the contents of the Solvency Certificate is in terms with Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Notice Page No.# 3/5 Inviting Tender dated 27.06.2025. It is however on account of a mistake being committed by the Bank in question i.e. the Indian Bank in putting the correct date in the Solvency Certificate which ought to have been 15.07.2025 and not 15.07.2024. 4. This Court also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who submitted that a perusal of the Solvency Certificate dated 15.07.2024 which the Petitioner submitted along with the bid cannot be a trusted document taking into account the said document refers to certain aspects which could not have been mentioned on the date of issuance of the said Certificate. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate therefore submitted that the said Certificate cannot at all be regarded as a Solvency Certificate being submitted. Further to the said, it is also submitted that in absence of the Solvency Certificate in terms of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the bid dated 27.06.2025, the Petitioner's bid was therefore rightly rejected. 5. Ms. R. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 supporting the submissions so made by Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has placed before this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of W.B. State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically observed that negligent mistakes in the bid documents cannot be permitted to be corrected on the basis of equity. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. Page No.# 4/5 7. A perusal of Clause 5 of the of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.06.2025 categorically mandates that there is a requirement of furnishing a copy of the Solvency Certificate of not less than Rs.3,00,00,000/- received from the Bank along with the copy of the authenticate audited financial statement (balance sheet, profit and loss account) for the last 3 (three) years, i.e. 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. It is seen that though the Petitioner had submitted the said Solvency Certificate, but the Solvency Certificate so issued was dated 15.07.2024. It is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner ought to have been more diligent at the time of submission of the bid and ought to have looked into the said Solvency Certificate before submitting the same. 8. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Paragraph No.27 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of W.B. State Electricity Board (supra) which is reproduced herein under: “27. Exceptions to the above general principle of seeking relief in equity on the ground of mistake, as can be culled out from the same para, are: (1) Where the mistake might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence on the part of the bidder; but where the offeree of the bid has or is deemed to have knowledge of the mistake, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a mistake. (2) Where the bidder on discovery of the mistake fails to act promptly in informing to the authority concerned and request for rectification, withdrawal or cancellation of bid on the ground of clerical mistake is not made before opening of all the bids. (3) Where the bidder fails to follow the rules and regulations set Page No.# 5/5 forth in the advertisement for bids as to the time when bidders may withdraw their offer; however where the mistake is discovered after opening of bids, the bidder may be permitted to withdraw the bid.” 9. A perusal of the above quoted paragraph of the judgment in the case of W.B. State Electricity Board (supra) would reveal that where the mistake might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence on the part of the bidder; but where the offeree of the bid has or is deemed to have knowledge of the mistake, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a mistake. In the instant case, it is seen that till 07.08.2025, the Petitioner did not make any attempt for making correction. It was only after coming to learn about the rejection of the technical bid, the Petitioner had taken steps. 10. Considering the above, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interfering with the Minutes of the Meeting held on 04.08.2025 whereby the Petitioner's technical bid was rejected. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 12. Interim order passed if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2025.12.02 16:31:33 +05'30'