Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010234052025 2025:GAU-AS:14737 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6096/2025 M/S GINTU HARDWARE AND SUPPLIER ITS HEAD OFFICE AT VILL- JALLAH, P.O. JALLAHHAT, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MUKUL ALI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O NAIMUDDIN R/O VILL- DAISINGARI, P.O. DAISINGARI, P.S. PATHACHARKUCHI, DIST. BAJALI. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM. 2:CHIEF ENGINEER PWD AND NH BUILDING CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 ASSAM 3:ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (P) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 ASSAM 4:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BAJALI DISTRICT Page No.# 2/4 TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION PATHSALA ASSAM 5:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI PATHSALA. 6:MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OF MEDHIKUCHI PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE BAJALI. 7:DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTGOR HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM. 8:UTPAL PATGIRI S/O PABITRA PATGIRI MILANPUR PATH W. NO. 4 PATHSALA TOWN DIST. BAJALI P.S. PATHSALA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. N. Krishnatraya, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. Advocate General, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. N. Krishnatraya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Page No.# 3/4 2. Taking into account that the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service in respect to the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8. 3. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the settlement of the contract in respect to construction of the boundary wall in the campus of Medhikuchi PHC, Bajali under Joint director of Health Service, Barpeta in favour of the Private Respondent No.8. 4. The grounds on which the Petitioner assails the award of the contract made in favour of the Respondent No.8 are two folds. First that there is a recommendation made by the President, Medhikuchi PHC, Management Committee in favour of the Petitioner and secondly, the rate quoted by the Respondent No.8 is below 15%. 5. It is seen from the records that the Respondent No.8 is the L1 bidder having quoted the effective bid value of Rs.22,31,383/- whereas the Petitioner herein is the second lowest bidder having quoted Rs.23,02,319/-. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Respondent No.8 is technically not competent except the aforementioned two grounds. 6. This Court has duly perused the recommendation so made by the President, Medhikuchi PHC Management Committee and in the opinion of this Court, the said recommendation cannot override the terms of the tender and as such, has no effective value. 7. In respect to the second ground, it is the mandate of the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Governor of Assam in terms with the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 that if the bid value is below 15%, Page No.# 4/4 the tender is not required to be cancelled rather the performance guarantee as set out in the Notice Inviting Tender would be proportionately increased. 8. Considering the above, this Court therefore does not find any good grounds to entertain the present writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant