Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010064742025 2025:GAU-AS:3465 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1747/2025 SUJIT KR GHOSH S/O- INDRA MOHAN GHOSH, R/O-B.BARUAH ROAD, SAHA PATTI, HOJAI, WARD NO.14, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005 2:THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 3:THE JOINT DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES HOJAI PAM GAON HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782442 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HEALTH Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR ORDER Date : 26.03.2025 Heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Health Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. M. Chutia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4. 2. Pursuant to a Tender Notice for providing diet services from empanelled vendor of Hojai district for District Health Institutions under the Joint Director of Health Services, Hojai/respondent No.3 dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Hojai, the petitioner participated in the said tender process. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 by a Communication dated 14.03.2024 awarded the work to the petitioner with regard to 5 (five) health institutions under Hojai district and directed the petitioner to deposit the security money amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only. While the petitioner was functioning as such, the respondent No.3 by a Communication dated 25.06.2024, cancelled the tender for dietary articles for different health institutions under the respondent No.3 in respect of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Director of Health Services Assam by a Communication dated 02.09.2024, addressed to the respondent No.3 directed to process the diet bills of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2024 to 25.06.2024 for payment and further directed to manage the supply of dietary items w.e.f 26.06.2024 by the earlier approved diet supplier/farm i.e. M/s. Afreen Collection, Nagaon until finalization Page No.# 3/5 of fresh tender. 3. In the meantime, the respondents issued NIT/Bid Document vide GEM/2025/B/6061341 dated 17.03.2025 for intending tenders to participate in the tender process for providing Healthcare kitchen dietary services for a contract period of 2 years. The petitioner is aggrieved by the eligibility criteria in respect of Clause B (iv) and (vii) provided in the bid document dated 17.03.2025 on the ground that the respondents are trying to apply the pick and choose policy by allowing only those bidders who are well wishers of the respondent authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is unable to participate in the tender process as he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria of Clause B (iv) and (vii). Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation order dated 25.06.2024 as well as the bid document dated 17.03.2025, issued by the respondents. 4. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Health Department submits that the eligibility criteria provided in the bid document dated 17.03.2025, particularly, in respect of Clause B (iv) and (vii) have been authored by the respondent authorities and they are the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents and therefore, this Court need not interfere with the bid document inasmuch as, the petitioner has failed to prove that the said has been done in a mala fide and perverse manner. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another Page No.# 4/5 reported in (2016)16 SCC 818 has held as under: “15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 6. Further, in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala reported in (2020) 17 SCC 577 the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (Supra) has held that the owner of the employer of a project having authored the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Court must defer to this understanding and appreciation of tender documents unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. Further, the word used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous and they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. 7. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the eligibility criteria is perverse or mala fide. The only case of the petitioner is that as he does not fulfill the required eligibility criteria, he is unable to participate in the tender. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for setting aside the Page No.# 5/5 eligibility criteria, particularly, in respect of B (iv) and (vii) is rejected. 8. The challenge to the termination of contract by the Communication dated 25.06.2024 has also been considered by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been keeping quite all this while and it was only after the NIT was issued, the petitioner is approaching this Court challenging the cancellation order dated 25.06.2024. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the Communication dated 25.06.2024 by which the tender for dietary articles in respect of the petitioner was cancelled. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent authorities, particularly, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to have a verification with regard to the outstanding dues to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2024 to 25.06.2024 and thereafter pay the admitted dues to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant