Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010213802025 2025:GAU-AS:16206 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5541/2025 MS VIDURS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT H.NO-43, RAJGARH ROAD, P.S- CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-03, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS POPRIETOR VIVEK KUMMAR SHARMA, RO- H.NO-01, 1ST FLOOR, SENAPATI BUILDING , SREENAGAR, RBG ROAD, GUWAHATI-05, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:DHEMAJI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHEMAJI REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT IRRIGATION ROAD NEAR SBI WARD NO. 3 DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHEMAJI MUNICIPAL BOARD Page No.# 2/16 DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 6:TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DHEMAJI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 7:ASHIMA HAZARIKA THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHEMAJI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 8:DIPREKHA DAS BAGHRI CHAIRPERSON DHEMAJI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 9:RESOLIN @ RESOLIN TECHNOLOGIES A ISO 9001-2015 CERTIFIED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE ADDRESS AT OLD BALIBAT FANCY ALI TARAJAN JORHAT PIN-785001 ASSAM REP BY ITS CO- FOUNDER SABIR SAMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Hazarika, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. M. Biswas, Advocate Mr. T. K. Bhuyan, Advocate Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.11.2025 Page No.# 3/16 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4; Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 5 & 6; Mr. T. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 and Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.9. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the evaluation made by the Technical Evaluation Committee dated 09.06.2025 in respect to the tender process initiated under NIT No.DMB/Tender/2025/745-A dated 13.05.2025 and further seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Financial Bid Evaluation dated 01.07.2025 in connection with the NIT dated 13.05.2025 and with a direction that the petitioner's Technical Bid should be re-evaluated by re-constituting another Evaluation Committee for both Technical and Financial as per the Page No.# 4/16 advisory dated 16.02.2024 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is that the respondent No.3 through its Executive Officer had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) thereby inviting bids from reputed agencies for “Establishment, Construction, Supply, Procurement, Fabrication, Installation of Machinery, Trial Run and Commissioning of a 20 TPD Automatic Solid Waste Segregation Plant as per the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016 on an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Mode-1 Basis”. 4. The petitioner along with the respondent No.9 and another bidder participated in the said bid process. The petitioner's Technical Bid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to secure 70 marks out of 100 marks in as much as the petitioner, as per the Technical Evaluation Committee, only secured 45 marks. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on 07.07.2025 stating inter alia that the non- granting of marks in various segments of the technical evaluation was without taking into consideration the various documents which were a part of the bid submitted by the petitioner. Page No.# 5/16 5. Be that as it may, inspite of such representation, the Respondent Authorities opened the Financial Bid of the respondent No.9 and took steps for obtaining the necessary clearance from the respondent No.2, i.e. the Director of Municipal Administration, for grant of the contract to the respondent No.9. Under such circumstances, the present writ petition. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that pursuant to filing of the writ petition on 24.09.2025, this Court issued notice making it returnable on 24.10.2025 thereby granting liberty to the respondents to bring on record their stand by filing their affidavits. 7. It is noticed from the records that the service was not complete as on 27.10.2025, and as such, the writ petition was directed to be listed on 17.11.2025 for an update. The respondents Nos.3 & 6 filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 17.11.2025 thereby supporting the grounds of rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner. It is seen that on 17.11.2025, when the matter was listed, time was sought for by the petitioner to submit the reply. This Court permitted the petitioner to file reply with a categorical observation that no further adjournment shall be granted for filing of the reply in the matter, and accordingly, the matter has been listed today for disposal at Page No.# 6/16 the admission stage. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 8. Mr. S. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the technical evaluation so carried out, the petitioner was only given 45 marks whereas the respondent No.9 was granted 75 marks. Referring to the pre- qualification criteria sheet of the technical evaluation, which is a part of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 09.06.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was not granted marks in respect to the following criteria, i.e. Supply, Installed and Commissioned at least three Automated Waste Segregation Plant in the last three years; minimum experience of three years in Waste Management Equipment Manufacturing, Automatic Waste Segregation Plant; Supply, Installed and Commissioned a minimum of one Automated Waste Segregation Plant in Assam within the last three years as well as in respect to registered trademark/patent for manufacturing of Automated Waste Segregation Machine. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non- granting of such marks in the aforesaid criteria were without proper application of mind to the materials submitted by the petitioner. Page No.# 7/16 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner, on coming to learn about the rejection of the Technical Bid on the basis of the petitioner having not secured 70 marks out of 100 marks, submitted a representation on 07.07.2025, but the same was not considered. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the reason behind declaring the rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner by the Respondent Authorities is only to favour the respondent No.9 in as much as the Financial Bid of the petitioner was much less than that of the respondent No.9. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2020’) mandates what steps were required to be taken when there was only a single responsive bidder, but no such steps were taken before the opening of the Financial Bid and it was only done subsequently as would be apparent from the communication dated 14th of August, 2025 wherein justifications have been provided. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this is a pure and simple case where the Respondent Authorities have resorted to unfairness, unreasonableness and arbitrariness in order to confer benefits upon the respondent No.9. Page No.# 8/16 12. Mr. S. Hazarika, the learned counsel also submitted that in terms with the advisory issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam dated 16.02.2024, all Procuring Entities were advised not to consider the Tender Inviting Authority as a member of any Evaluation Committee (Technical or Financial). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the technical evaluation so carried out, the Executive Officer, Dhemaji Municipal Board who was the Authority who had invited the Request for Proposal was a member, and as such, on that count also the said Technical Evaluation was not in conformity with the advisory issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. 13. Per contra, Mr. M Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Dhemaji Municipal Board submitted that a perusal of the Request for Proposal itself would show that the same was issued for the purpose of Establishment, Construction, Supply, Procurement, Fabrication, Installation of Machinery, Trial Run, and Commissioning of a 20 TPD Automatic Solid Waste Segregation Plant. He, therefore, submitted that the experience in respect to Automatic Solid Waste Segregation Plant is the most essential. Referring to the Technical Evaluation, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had failed to provide the minimum experience in respect to Supply, Page No.# 9/16 Installation, and Commissioning of three Automatic Waste Segregation Plants or even Supply, Installation and Commissioning of a minimum of one Automatic Waste Segregation Plant in Assam within the last three years. The learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner may have a trademark registry to general industrial machines, but it is not specific to automatic segregation systems for Municipal Solid Waste Management, and as such, no marks were awarded to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that a Technical Committee comprising of various Engineers have looked into the Technical Bid of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner did not have the experience in such vital aspects. The learned counsel submitted that it being a settled principle that when the Technical Committee had decided on the technical competence, the wisdom behind the said evaluation ought not be looked into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the Advisory which has been referred to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of the Finance Department, dated 16.02.2024 would not come in the way in respect to the Technical Evaluation carried by the Dhemaji Municipal Board in the instant case in as much as by way of a notification dated 18.07.2022 issued in the name of the Governor of Assam, both Page No.# 10/16 the Chairperson as well as the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board have been made the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Technical Evaluation Committee and in that regard has referred to the notification which is Annexure-F to the affidavit-in-opposition. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that the submission so made that the Financial Bid was opened inspite of there being one technically responsive bidder is totally misconceived in as much as the petitioner who is a technically non-responsive bidder cannot agitate the said aspect. The learned counsel further submitted that a perusal of Rule 23(20)(i) of the Rules of 2020 would only apply if the Bid Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that while floating the Notice Inviting Tender, all necessary requirements to encourage competition like standard bidding terms and conditions, industry-friendly specifications, wide publicity, sufficient time for formulation of bids etc. are not fulfilled. However, the justification so provided to the Director of Municipal Administration would clearly show that these aspects were duly considered, and thereupon, the Tender Evaluation Committee had decided to proceed with the tender process. He, therefore, submitted that there is no case of any unfairness, arbitrariness, unreasonableness or lack of transparency in the said process to adjudge the respondent No.9 to be the suitable Page No.# 11/16 bidder for the contract in question. 16. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.9 submitted that he would adopt the argument so made by Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel who represents the Dhemaji Municipal Board. Additionally, the learned counsel for the respondent No.9 submitted that there is no allegation that the respondent No.9 has been granted more marks than what is due to him. 17. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Director of Municipal Administration submitted that no instructions have been provide to her by the Director of Municipal Administration. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 18. From the materials on record as well as the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the following Points for Consideration arise for adjudication:- (i) Whether the rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner calls for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the instant case? (ii) Whether the presence of the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board in the Technical Evaluation Page No.# 12/16 Committee has rendered the technical evaluation so carried out on 09.06.2025 bad in law in view of the advisory issued by the Finance Department dated 16.02.2024? (iii) Whether the respondent Dhemaji Municipal Board in the facts of the instant case ought to have gone for a fresh tender as there was only a single responsive bidder in terms with Rule 23(20) of the Rules of 2020? FIRST POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 19. In the previous segments of the present judgment, the request for proposal in question is for Establishment, Construction, Supply, Procurement, Fabrication, Installation of Machinery, Trial Run and Commissioning of a 20 TPD Automatic Solid Waste Segregation Plant at Dhemaji. 20. The criteria set out by the Tender Evaluation Committee for pre-qualification requiring the bidder or its OEM to have supplied, installed, commissioned at least three Automatic Waste Segregation Plant in the last three years; the bidder must have supplied, installed and commissioned a minimum of one Automatic Waste Segregation Plant in Assam within the last three years; the bidder or its OEM should have registered Page No.# 13/16 trademark/patent for manufacturing of Automatic Waste Segregation Machine cannot be said that the criteria so set out have no reasonable nexus to the Request for Proposal issued by the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board. 21. The record reveals that the petitioner was not afforded any marks in the above three criteria. A representation dated 07.07.2025 was submitted wherein inter alia it is stated that the petitioner had the experience and such documents were submitted along with its bid. It is very pertinent to observe Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.3 & 6 wherein it is mentioned with detail that the documents which were submitted by the petitioner were certificates and in respect to projects which are either manual or semi-mechanized and not automated. It is the opinion of this Court that this evaluation so carried out by the Respondent Authorities consisting of technical persons cannot be looked into sans any allegations of malafide or bias against those technical members who were present. 22. It is relevant herein to mention that in the instant writ petition the allegation is against the Executive Officer as well as the Chairperson on the ground that they could not have been members of the Technical Committee and not against the all other seven members who were duly present. In the opinion of Page No.# 14/16 this Court, therefore, the awarding of the 45 marks to the petitioner out of 100 marks as well as not awarding marks on the three criteria as mentioned hereinabove cannot be said to be an act which is unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrational. This answers the first Point for Consideration. SECOND POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 23. The Second Point for Consideration is in respect to whether the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board could have been a part of the Technical Evaluation Committee in view of the Advisory of the Finance Department dated 16.02.2024. 24. A perusal of the Advisory issued by the Finance Department dated 16.02.2024 would show that the Procuring Entities were only advised not to consider the Tender Inviting Authority as a member of any Evaluation Committee, Technical or Financial. The reason for doing so is to avoid any chance of conflict of interest which would ensure that the procurement process is carried out in the most transparent and possible manner. It is relevant to take note of that the Governor of Assam by a notification dated 18.07.2022 had constituted an Urban Local Body for the evaluation of tenders and monitoring of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. The said Committee constituted consists of the Executive Officer of the Urban Local Body as Member Secretary and the Chairperson of the Urban Local Body Page No.# 15/16 as the Chairman of the said Committee. This notification dated 18.07.2022 is a notification in terms with Article 166 of the Constitution and it would be a binding. On the other hand, the Advisory issued by the Finance Department cannot override the said notification dated 18.07.2022 in as much as the role of an Advisory is only to provide guidance, clarification or recommended procedures. The Advisory in the instant question in the opinion of this Court cannot override the Notification dated 18.07.2022 issued in the name of the Governor. 25. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that on the basis of the advisory dated 16.02.2024, the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board cannot be said to be disqualified to be a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee. In addition to that, it is also pertinent to mention that the basic reason for the issuance of the advisory dated 16.02.2024 is to avoid any chance of conflict of interest. There is no allegation of any conflict of interest of the Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Municipal Board. Under such circumstances, the Second Point for Consideration is decided against the petitioner. THIRD POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 26. The Third Point for Consideration is as to whether the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities is in conflict with Rule 23(20)(i) of the Rules of 2020. It is the opinion of the Court that Page No.# 16/16 this ground cannot be raised by an unresponsive bidder who has failed in the technical evaluation. Secondly, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities have given due justification to the State Mission Director, Swachh Bharat Mission (U) Assam by the communication dated 14.08.2025 justifying that the tender process should be continued inspite of there being a single responsive bidder. This justification note has not put to challenge. Considering the above, the Third Point for Consideration is also decided against the petitioner. CONCLUSION 27. In view of the above, this Court therefore does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2025.12.04 14:48:23 +05'30'