Page No.# 1/21 GAHC030008302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/158/2025 M/S FS and T Electricals Chanmari West, Aizawl, Mizoram through its Authorised Signatory VERSUS State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. through the Chief Secretary, Mizoram Secretariat, Aizawl 2:Power and Electricity Department through the Secretary P and ED Aizawl - 796001 3:Engineer-In-Chief Power and Electricity Department Govt. of Mizoram through the Engineer-in-Chief Kawlphetha MINECO Khatla Aizawl-796001 4:M/S GK FISCON-IDEAS JV Dr. N Pallai Building C-1 Zarkawt Aizawl-79600 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-R3 Page No.# 2/21 WITH I.A.(Civil) No. 40 of 2026 1. M/S FS & T ELECTRICALS, Chanmari West, Aizawl – 796001, Mizoram Through its Authorized signatory. … APPLICANT/PETITIONER. -Versus- 1. STATE OF MIZORAM, Through the Chief Secretary, Mizoram Secretariat, Aizawl, Mizoram 2. POWER & ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, Government of Mizoram, Through the Secretary, P&ED, Aizawl – 796001, Mizoram 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram, Through the Engineer-in-Chief, Kawlphetha, MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl - 796001, Mizoram 4. M/S GK FISCON-IDEAS JV Dr. N Pallai Building, C-1, Zarkawt, Aizawl – 796001, Mizoram Page No.# 3/21 …RESPONDENTS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the applicant: Mr. Kartik Jain, Adv. Advocates for the respondents: Mr. Biswajit Deb, AG, Mizoram, R-1 to 3, Mr. A. R. Malhotra, Adv, R-4 Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) This order will dispose of both the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application filed by the writ petitioner. [2.] Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Also heard Mr. Biswajit Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, assisted by Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. [3.] By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 for the contract work by the official respondents after acceptance of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the respondent No. 4, Page No.# 4/21 which according to the petitioner was not valid. The petitioner is further aggrieved with the rejection of its Joint Venture without notice or opportunity for clarification for the works under the name and style “Strengthening of Transmission & Transformation system for Sustainable Power Supply in Mizoram under NESIDS (OTRI)”, which was floated under NIT/RFB No. P- 37117/1/25-E-in-C(PM)/13 dated 06.11.2025. [4.] Be it stated herein that, earlier the State respondents had floated an NIT for the same work vide No. P-13012/3/14-E-in-C(PM)/52 dated 19.09.2025. Thereafter a corrigendum was issued on 09.10.2025, by which the last date of tender submission was corrected as 25.10.2025 10:00AM, the presentation for technical bid as 25.10.2025 11:00AM and the technical bid opening as 25.10.2025 02:00PM. Insofar as the Standard Biding Document was concerned, the EMD/bid security amount earlier shown as Rs.67,87,000.00/- was now to be read as Rs.57,87,000.00/- and further, the annual turnover for the last five (5) consecutive financial years should be more than Rs.14.36 crores of the estimated cost put to tender instead of last three (3) consecutive financial years turnover. Lastly, the experience in eligible similar nature of work during the last seven (7) years that was prescribed earlier, now did not stipulate any number of years now. [5.] Facts not disputed is that against the NIT that was issued there was only a sole tenderer, i.e. the respondent No. 4 and as the tender submitted was not found to be responsive, the respondent authorities decided to go for re-tender. Accordingly, the work was re-tendered vide NIT dated 06.11.2025 by which interested firms were required to submit their bids not later than 16:00 hours on 11.11.2025. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 submitted their respective bids and following the evaluation of the tender Page No.# 5/21 documents on the stipulated dates, respondent No. 4 was selected for the work while the petitioner’s bid was rejected on account of the Joint Venture agreement and Power of Attorney having being signed only by Zoram Venture. As a result, the annual turnover of the two (2) partner firms were not taken into account and the sole annual turnover of the petitioner firm, was found to be below the required margin at Rs.5.80 crores. A communication to this effect was made to the petitioner by the Engineer-in-Chief (P&E) through his letter dated 17.11.2025 and in response, the petitioner submitted his representation and objection before the respondent authority concerned. However, the objections raised by the petitioner and the contentions made, were found to be invalid and the technical evaluation, made earlier was reiterated. Accordingly, the partner firm of the petitioner i.e. M/S Zoram Venture, was communicated about the decision made on their representation and objection, by the Engineer-in-Chief (P&E) vide his letter dated 20.11.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner firm is before this Court. [6.] Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel, submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner on account of the absence of signatory in the joint venture agreement without seeking clarification is most arbitrary particularly when there is no specific stipulation that the joint venture agreement should be submitted along with the tender documents. He submits that there is indeed a joint venture agreement between the petitioner firm and two (2) other firms under the name and style of Zoram Venture as the lead member and Semco Infratech Private Limited as the third firm, apart from the petitioner firm. He submits that under the Indian law, there is no requirement of having a written agreement and that even an oral agreement is acceptable and can be made between the parties. He otherwise submits that since the petitioner firm and another firm apart from the lead firm Zoram Venture had signed in a Page No.# 6/21 different page, which was not uploaded while submitting the tender, the ground for rejecting the tender of the petitioner without seeking a clarification before rejection cannot be sustained and should be set aside. He submits that on the other hand the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and NIT mandated EMD of Rs.57,87,000/- with validity co-extensive with the bid validity of 120 days, the respondent No. 4 firm submitted a different EMD amount of Rs.67,87,000/- and whose validity did not satisfy the minimum bid validity requirement. He submits that under the procurement law, non-compliance with bid security requirements renders the bid non-responsive. Yet, the respondent authorities treated the bid of the respondent No. 4 as responsive and proceeded to financial bid opening on 18.11.2025, contrary to the SBD, GFR 2017 and the Manual of Procurement of Goods, 2024. The learned counsel further submits that in order to show undue favour to the respondent No. 4, the respondent authorities while re-tendering the work through NIT dated 06.11.2025, deleted the Clause – 2 (iii) of the Instructions to Tenderers in Section 1 of the SBD. He submits that even on this ground the impugned selection of the respondent No. 4 is arbitrary and illegal and therefore should be set aside. Referring to the additional-affidavit filed by the petitioner on 08.12.2025, the learned counsel submits that the FDR issued by the ICICI bank in the name of the respondent No. 4 firm on 08.10.2025 was scheduled to mature on 08.01.2026. Crucially, the FDR is neither auto renewable nor does it provide for continuation beyond the maturity date provided. Therefore, it is set to auto close and liquidate on 08.01.2026. Acceptance of such an FDR is in clear deviation from the mandatory requirements stipulated under the NIT and therefore, the selection of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of the invalid FDR cannot be sustained and should be set aside. [7.] Further, by referring to the form of Power of Attorney for consortium partners relied Page No.# 7/21 upon and produced by the respondent No. 4, the learned counsel submits that the same was executed on 28.07.2025 authorizing the Power of Attorney holder to exercise all or any of the powers for and on behalf of the consortium in regard to technical specifications for the bids invited by the Power Electricity Department even before the NIT was issued on 19.09.2025 and the second re-tender through the NIT dated 06.11.2025. The same, therefore, goes to show that there is a collusion between the official respondents and the respondent No. 4. The date 28.07.2025 also cannot be a typographical error as the same is consistently mentioned in as many as three (3) places i.e. in Paragraph No. 1 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4, in the Power of Attorney itself and in the documents submitted by the respondent No. 4 in the tender process through online. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has referred to the statements made in the rejoinder- affidavit filed against the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4 by the petitioner. [8.] Referring to the interlocutory application, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank guarantee annexed by the respondent No. 4 and the official respondents in their counter-affidavit is a fake, forged and fabricated document as the same does not bear a serial number in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and that the same does not bear the mandatory signatures of two (2) banking officials along with their names as the amount is over and above the amount of Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel submits that the bank guarantee also does not bear any endorsement or payment of stamp duty. He submits that it is evident that the bank guarantee is forged since it was never uploaded by the respondent No. 4 along with the original bid documents on 11.11.2025 on e- procurement system prior to the tender submission deadline. Reliance upon the said document appears to be nothing but a desperate post-facto attempt to cover up the fatal Page No.# 8/21 defect in the bid of the respondent No. 4 according to the learned counsel. He submits that the act of creating a false document and knowingly using it as a genuine in a judicial proceeding, constitutes grave criminal offences and therefore, it is a fit case for this Court to direct an inquiry under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) into the commission of offences like forgery, using a forged document as genuine and giving false evidence. Upon forming a prima-facie opinion about the commission of the said offences, this Court may be pleased to further direct a complaint to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) having jurisdiction for initiation of criminal prosecution against the erring officials/persons. The learned counsel, in support of his submission in this regard has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 253, (ii) Judgment dated 02.07.2024 of the High Court of Delhi rendered in M/s KG Marketing India Vs. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr., 2024:DHC:4887. [9.] The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the tender processing fee was carried forward for respondent No. 4, which otherwise is not permissible and the same shows great biasness against the petitioner while showing favouritism to the respondent No. 4. [10.] The learned counsel in support of the contentions and submissions made in the writ petition has also relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 23.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 2019 (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala). (ii) Judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Page No.# 9/21 Appeal No. ___ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1940 of 2025 (Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Private Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited & Anr.), 2025 INSC 1085. [11.] Mr. Biswajit Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, appearing for the State respondents in the other hand by referring to the joint venture agreement claimed by the petitioner and annexed to the counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as Annexure – I, submits that the agreement is only signed by the lead member i.e., Zoram Venture and therefore, the same cannot be accepted as a joint venture agreement. He submits that the petitioner now at page No. 346 of the writ petition has annexed the signature of all the three (3) firms to show that it was indeed a joint venture agreement. He submits that the same was never uploaded while submitting the tender documents and therefore the petitioner has only tried to improve his case and mislead the Court. Referring to Clause – 6 of Part – 1 of “Biding Procedures and Requirements” of the SBD, he submits that it has been clearly provided that an incomplete and/or ambiguous and/or conditional bid and/or bid submitted late is liable to be ignored/summarily rejected. The bid of the petitioner, therefore, without the signature of all the firms in the joint venture agreement was incomplete and therefore, liable to be rejected summarily. He also submits that the average annual financial turnover during the immediate last five (5) consecutive financial years has to be more than Rs.14.36 crores, whereas, the petitioner’s annual turnover is only Rs.5.80 crores. The petitioner was, therefore, clearly ineligible to participate in the tender process. [12.] Mr. Biswajit Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, further submits that Clause – 2 (iii) of the Instructions to tenderers in the SBD was deleted, so as to invite competition. In this regard, he submits that the opinion of the Advocate General was sought and the Page No.# 10/21 advice given was that the Department should not proceed to award the contract to the sole bidder but rather issue a re-tender at the earliest. He submits that if there was any favouritism being adopted to select the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 could have simply been selected without going for re-tendering. However, in order to have better competition and fair play, the respondent authorities were advised to go for re-tendering and which accordingly was done. [13.] The learned Advocate General, Mizoram, submits that in matters relating to contract the established principles laid down by the Apex Court is that the soundness of the decision taken by the employer is not to be questioned but rather it is the decision making process, which can be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala-fide or intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting diligently and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. If such is not the case, the decision taken by the employer is to be respected. That even in the case of a finding that there is total arbitrariness or tender has been granted in a mala-fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering and instead relegate the parties to seek damages for wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate General has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) M/s Steag Energy Services (India) Private Limited Vs. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Limited (GPPC) & Ors., (2026) SCC OnLine SC 478; (ii) M/s N.G. Projects Limited v. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Page No.# 11/21 (iii) M/s Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India & Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 489; (iv) Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 622; (v) Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216; (vi) Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 517; (vii) Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; and (viii) G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 488. [14.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that he adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. He further submits that the ground of challenge, according to the petitioner is that no fresh EMD was presented by the respondent No. 4 and the earlier EMD was carried forward. In this connection, the learned counsel submits that as per the provisions of Rule – 42(5) of the Mizoram Public Procurement Rules, 2020, the bid security originally deposited is to be taken into consideration in case bids are re-invited. In the present case, the earlier NIT dated 19.09.2025 was superseded by the second NIT dated 06.11.2025 by which re-tender of the works in question was made. Therefore, as permissible under the Public Procurement Rules, the bid security of the respondent No. 4, which was in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) was carried forward. The learned counsel submits that insofar as the deletion of Clause – 2(iii) of the Instructions to tenderers in the SBD, the petitioner never raised any grievance against the same and instead participated in the tender process. After participating in the tender process and becoming unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the deletion of Page No.# 12/21 the said clause. In this regard, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Sibaram Deka Vs. State of Assam & 7 Ors., 2023:GAU-AS:8297-DB. [15.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel further submits that a pre-bid meeting was held for e-tender of the works on 10.11.2025, wherein, after due deliberation it was decided that FDRs can be accepted as bank guarantee. Referring to Clause – 4 of the Instructions to tenderer in the SBD, the learned counsel submits that the tenderer is required to furnish earnest money of Rs.57,87,000/- in the form of bank draft/deposit at call from a nationalized bank placed in the favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, Mizoram, and failing which, the tender will not be opened. The respondent No. 4 had submitted the FDR in favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, amounting to Rs.67,87,000/- which was more than the amount required and which also was accepted as a bank guarantee in the Pre-bid Meeting dated 10.11.2025 and therefore, the selection of the respondent No. 4 is valid. He submits that although the FDR was due to mature on 08.01.2026 but the same was under lien in favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, and therefore it was rightly accepted. He, further, submits that it is not the contention of the respondent No. 4 that a bank guarantee was submitted but rather it was the bank guarantee form which was prescribed by the tender document that was submitted. He submits that the same was also duly clarified by the ICICI bank under their certificate “To whom it may concern” dated 03.03.2026, which is annexed to the written objection of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the interlocutory application as Annexure – II. [16.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, further submits that the date shown in the Power of Attorney annexed to the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4 Page No.# 13/21 as 28.07.2025 is a typographical error. He submits that 03.10.2025 is the date of purchase of the folio and 04.10.2025 is the date on which it was notarized. He also submits that as per the Instructions to tenderers in the SBD, the Power & Electricity Department reserves the right to waive minor deviations, if they do not materially affect the capability of the bidder to perform the contract. Such being the case, even in the case of minor errors, the same can be waived by the Department. [17.] Referring to the Power of Attorney submitted by the petitioner dated 20.10.2025, annexed to the counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel, submits that even before a joint venture agreement was signed between the partner firms on 11.11.2025, the Power of Attorney had already been executed and, therefore, the documents relied upon by the petitioner are doubtful and were rightly rejected by the official respondents. Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel, further referring to the joint venture signed by the partner firms, which is annexed to the writ petition at page No. 347 submits that while all the firms could have easily signed in a common page all of them have signed in different pages and, therefore, the same appears to be only an afterthought after the defect was discovered during the tender scrutiny process. He submits that the petitioner otherwise had only uploaded the joint venture agreement containing only one signature i.e. the signature of the lead firm. [18.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel, further submits that after the scrutiny of the tender documents was done, the petitioner’s bid was found to be non-responsive and accordingly, the petitioner was informed by the Engineer-in-Chief, P&E Deptt., vide communication dated 17.11.2025. However, the petitioner has withheld this fact in the writ Page No.# 14/21 petition for reasons best known to him. As the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, it has to be judged by its conduct and accordingly denied any relief. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Kari Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481. He, further, submits that the established principles of law relating to award of contract by the State is that the writ court ordinarily does not interfere in the matters relating to tender or contract. It refrains from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of the tenderer unless something very gross or culpable is pointed out. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since the bid submitted by it was found to be invalid, it has no right to challenge the selection of respondent No. 4. In other words, the learned counsel submits that a party, which does not fulfill the requisite criteria, cannot claim any relief, as the same will only be misplaced. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 and Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492. [19.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner having failed to upload the joint venture agreement signed by all the parties and thereafter, producing the same in the writ petition as an afterthought is liable to be proceeded against through an inquiry directed by this Court under Section 379 of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. even without a separate application. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Radhey Shyam Garg Vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, (2009) 13 SCC 201. [20.] From the above projection, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the Page No.# 15/21 rejection of its bid in absence of signatory of all the partners in the joint venture agreement without seeking any clarification. Secondly, the grievance projected is with regard to the acceptance of the FDR dated 08.10.2025, which was due to mature on 08.01.2026. Whereas, the requirement was that the EMD was required to be valid for at least 120 days. Thirdly, the bank guarantee produced by the respondent No. 4 was a fake, forged and fabricated document and therefore, the Court should direct an inquiry under Section 379 of the BNSS. Fourthly, the grievance of the petitioner is that Clause – 2 (iii) of the Instructions to Tenderers in the SBD was deleted so as to favour the respondent No. 4. [21.] Insofar as the rejection of the bid of the petitioner on account of the absence of signatories of all the partner firms who were said to have joint venture agreement is concerned, it may be seen that as per the Clause 2 (ii) of Part – 1 “Bidding Procedures and Requirements” of the SBD is concerned, the qualification of the bidder will be based on meeting the minimum criteria which includes and stipulates the average annual financial turnover during the immediate five (5) consecutive financial years should be more than Rs.14.36 crores, equivalent to 30% of the estimated cost put to tender. [22.] According to the petitioner, it has a joint venture agreement comprising of three (3) firms in all with Zoram Venture as the lead member. Although, such a claim was made, the petitioner had uploaded, the joint venture agreement which had only one (1) signatory, i.e, of Zoram Venture, which is the lead member. Since, there were no other signatories, the respondent authorities upon opening the tender, did not accept or take into account the financial turnover of the other two (2) firms in absence of any signed agreement by the three (3) firms. While the required average annual financial turnover was more than Rs.14.36 Page No.# 16/21 crores, the petitioner firm’s annual financial turnover was only Rs.5.80 crores. Therefore, the petitioner firm’s bid was found to be not responsive and accordingly it was rejected. The petitioner has also admitted that what was uploaded online while submitting the tender was the joint venture agreement only signed by Zoram Venture, the lead member. The petitioner, however, claims that the other two (2) firms have also given their signatures to the joint venture agreement in separate pages. If that was the case, the same should have been uploaded while responding to the tender as the qualifying requirement was to have an annual financial turnover of Rs.14.36 crores during the immediate last five (5) consecutive financial years. [23.] The joint venture agreement said to have been signed by all the three (3) firms in three (3) separate pages now annexed to the writ petition at page Nos. 349, 350 & 351 appears to be rather unusual in view of the fact that there is enough space in one single page for all the three (3) firms to put their signatures in the joint venture agreement. Be that as it may, this Court would not like to embark upon the possibility or otherwise of having all the signatures in one page but however, the question is as to what prevented the petitioner from uploading the complete set of the joint venture agreement, since it is obviously known to the petitioner that all the three (3) firms had signed separately in three (3) sheets of paper. It may also be seen that Clause – 6 of Part – 1 of Bidding Procedures and Requirements of the SBD provides that an incomplete and/or ambiguous and/or conditional bid and/or bid submitted late is liable to be ignored/summarily rejected. Regarding the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no specific stipulation that the joint venture agreement should be submitted along with the tender documents, it may be seen that though such prescription is not available but it is for the bidder to demonstrate that it is financially Page No.# 17/21 sound and conforming to the prescription of Clause – 2 (ii) of Section – 1 of Instructions to Tenderers in the SBD, as stated earlier. Therefore, displaying its financial soundness after opening of the tender and, in fact, through the instant writ petition, in view of the annexed signed documents, cannot but be considered as an afterthought. [24.] As regards the validity of the EMD not meeting the requirement of 120 days, it may be seen that in the pre-bid meeting held on 10.11.2025, chaired by the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, where as many as representatives of four (4) firms were present, it was decided that Fixed Deposit Receipt can be accepted as bank guarantee. The bank guarantee provided by the respondent No. 4 in the form of FDR was in favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, Mizoram for an amount of Rs.67,87,000/-. The FDR was issued on 08.10.2025 and was due to mature on 08.01.2026. For this reason, the petitioner contends that it does not have a validity of 120 days as prescribed by the tender guidelines and therefore, the same could not have been accepted as a valid instrument. However, in the pre-bid meeting, there was a deliberation and it was decided that FDR can be accepted as bank guarantee. According to the respondents, the FDR was drawn in favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department and irrespective of the maturity date, there was lien in favour of the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department and as such, despite the maturity date, the lien continues until the obligations are fully satisfied. The main purpose of the bank guarantee is to ensure bid security and therefore, as long as the amount fixed remains with the employer i.e. the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, the purpose is served. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner in the considered view of this Court is not tenable. Page No.# 18/21 [25.] As regards the deletion of Clause – 2 (iii) of the Instructions to Tenderers in Section – 1 of the SBD, the learned Advocate General, Mizoram, has submitted that the same was for the purpose of inviting more competition and that advise was given by him in this regard. It may also be seen that grievance in this regard has come from the petitioner only after he participated in the tender process and became unsuccessful. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn around at this stage i.e., after he had participated without any protest and claim deletion of the relevant clause to be unfair. The case of Sibaram Deka (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, only appears to be squarely applicable in this regard. [26.] With regard to the claim of the petitioner that the bank guarantee submitted by the respondent No. 4 is a fake, forged and a fabricated document, it may be seen that according to the respondent No. 4, it did not submit any bank guarantee instrument but only a format, which was prescribed in the tender documents. Moreover, as stated earlier, a decision was taken in the pre-bid meeting held on 10.11.2025 to accept the FDR as bank guarantee and that the respondent No. 4 had submitted the FDR in the earlier tender which got carried forward in the subsequent tender due to non-finalization of the earlier tender, the objection raised therefore is not tenable particularly, in view of Rule 45(5) of the Mizoram Public Procurement Rules, 2020, which provides that the bid security originally deposited is to be taken into consideration in case the bids are re-invited. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard. [27.] By filing the interlocutory application, the applicant/petitioner has sought for a direction from this Court for conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 of the BNSS Page No.# 19/21 for commission of forgery and using forged documents as genuine. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the case of Pritish (supra) and M/s KG Marketing India (supra). Likewise, Mr. A.R Malhotra the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also submitted that in view of the petitioner having produced the signatures of all the three (3) firms, who claim to have a joint venture agreement belatedly in the writ petition, while failing to upload the same, in the tender process should be enquired upon to find out the truth. It may be noticed that in the foregoing paragraph, that this Court had taken into account the fact that the respondent No. 4 does not claim to have submitted the actual bank guarantee instrument but only the form or format as was provided in the tender documents was subimittrd. At the same time, the FDR submitted by the respondent No. 4 was accepted as a bank guarantee as per the decision taken in the pre-bid meeting held on 10.11.2025. Likewise, this Court has also observed that since the petitioner failed to upload the entire joint venture agreement, which includes the signatures of all the three (3) firms at the time of submission of the bid, submission of the complete joint venture agreement at this stage in the writ petition would be of no consequence. In other words, this Court has accepted the decision taken by the respondent authorities in not accepting the bid of the petitioner on this ground and therefore, under the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find the necessity for directing a preliminary inquiry, as prayed for by the petitioner. [28.] The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s N.G. Projects Limited (supra) in the given facts of that case held that the writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, in view of the fact that the Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. That the role of the Page No.# 20/21 Court is limited to examination of the decision making process and not the decision itself. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further, held that even if there was arbitrariness or the tender was granted in a mala-fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender and instead relegate the parties to seek damages for wrongful execution rather than injunct the execution of the contract. [29.] In M/s Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in the given facts of the case held that the Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. That Courts should give way to the opinion of the expertise unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation of the employer must be accepted. [30.] In the present case, as may be noticed, the petitioner failed to demonstrate its financial soundness to the satisfaction of the tender authority and the decision taken could not be said to be arbitrary, since the joint venture agreement submitted by the petitioner was found to be with only one signatory. Therefore, when the petitioner did not qualify in the bidding process, it cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance in the selection of respondent No. 4, whose tender was otherwise found to be valid. [31.] Having come to the above conclusion, further reference to the authorities relied upon by the parties is found to be not necessary. In the result, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Likewise, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, the interlocutory application is also found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Page No.# 21/21 JUDGE Comparing Assistant