GHV (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
WP(C)/725/2025 · 2025-05-21
Michael Zothankhuma
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6917 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6917 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010022302025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/725/2025 GHV (INDIA) PVT. LTD. BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. FAROOQ VIJAYPURA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE 1ST FLOOR, AML CENTER, 1, 8 MAHA KALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA- 400093. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, 1, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2:NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY (NFR) HEAD QUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 781011. (TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER). 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER CE/CON/KYQ PROJECT/MALIGAON NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY (CONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATION) MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 781011 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN, M ALI,MR S ABDULLAH,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,S A CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B CHAKRAVARTY (C.G.C.)
Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 22-05-2025 Heard Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Chakravarty, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner is one of the intending bidders to the Notice Inviting Bid, hereinafter referred to as the “NIB” invited by the respondent no. 2 for
“construction of Viaduct (4.7 km), Retaining Walls, Embankment and Minor Bridges for proposed Up and Down line to provide permanent mitigation measures in elephant corridors near Deepor Beel area, including Track work, OHE work, modification of Azara SSP and Signalling & Telecom work between statin Azara and Kamakhya for commissioning of Azara-Kamakhya Section in connection with NBQ-GLPT-KYQ doubling project”. The tender was issued on
19.10.2024. 3. It is the submission of the petitioner that the last date for submission of bids was extended up to 31.12.2024 from the earlier date of 23.12.2024, without any formal corrigendum, except for an intimation on the IREPS portal. In view of the ensuing holidays across the Country for New Year’s Eve, the petitioner could not submit the necessary documents on 31.12.2024. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be informed that two bidders had also submitted documents in respect of the said NIB after the due date of
31.12.2024.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the last date for receiving the documents ought to have been granted beyond 31.12.2024 and further, the bid sought to be submitted by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected in
Page No.# 3/4 view of the acceptance by the N.F. Railway of the bid papers submitted by other tenderers on 06.01.2025, which was beyond the last date for submission of tender/bids. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before the Court praying for appropriate orders. 5. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in response to the tender notice, 23 (twenty three) tenderers had submitted their tenders through Online Portal. Thereafter, as required, 18 (eighteen) tenderers submitted their physical bid documents within the due date, i.e. 31.12.2024. However, 4 (four) tenderers made physical submission after the due date and the same was submitted at “Receive and Dispatch” Section and not before the designated tender Section. He submits that neither did the petitioner nor its representatives appear before the respondents before 31.12.2024 or on any other date, requesting the respondents to accept their physical bid documents beyond the last date of submission of bids. He also submits that any document submitted physically by tenderers after the due date, i.e., 31.12.2025, through
“DAK” or at the “Receive and Dispatch” Section will be considered as “Delay Submission” only and the same will be treated as per the tender terms and conditions, making them ineligible to get the contract work in issue. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. As can be seen from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the last date of submission of bids was extended till 31.12.2024 from
23.12.2024. The petitioner having the knowledge that the last date of submission of bids had been extended from 23.12.2024 to 31.12.2024, the petitioner had all the opportunity to submit it’s bid prior to 31.12.2024.
The
Page No.# 4/4 petitioner not having submitted his bid on time, no right of the petitioner has been violated due to the fault of the petitioner in not submitting his bid on time. As the respondents have taken a categorical stand that they would not consider any physical bids submitted after the due date, i.e., 31.12.2024, making them ineligible to be awarded the contract work in issue, nothing remains to be decided in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to ensure that those tenderers, who have submitted their physical bid documents after the due date, i.e., 31.12.2024, should be made ineligible, for allotment of the contract work. 8. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. 9. Interim order passed earlier, if any, is hereby vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant