Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030004712026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/5/2026 M/S FS and T Electricals Chanmari West, Aizawl - 796001, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors. Mizoram Secretariat, Aizawl 2:Power and Electricity Department through the Secretary P and ED 3:Engineer-in-Chief through the Engineer-in-Chief 4:M/S GK Fiscon Ideas J Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 30.07.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Lalnunhlui, Page No.# 2/11 learned Government Advocate, Mizoram. 2. The present appeal is against the impugned judgement and order dated 29/05/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing WP(C) No. 158/2025 filed by the appellant, wherein the appellant had challenged the selection of the respondent no. 4 as the successful tenderer for the contract work. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the State respondents had floated an NIT for “Strengthening of Transmission and Transformation System for Sustainable Power Supply in Mizoram under NESIDC (OTRI)”, by way of a two envelope Online Tender Process. The respondent no. 4 was the sole tenderer in the NIT dated 19/09/2025. However, the bid of respondent no. 4 being found to be non-responsive, the respondent authorities decided to issue a fresh NIT. 4. Subsequently, a fresh e-tender/NIT dated 06/11/2025 for the same work was floated and the qualifying requirement of a bidder in terms of Clause 2(ii) of the Standard Bidding Document, required the bidder to have a minimum criteria of “Average Financial Turnover” during the last 5 consecutive financial years to be more than 14.36 crores (30% of the estimated cost put to tender). 5. The NIT being a two envelope bid process, the technical bids of the tenderers were opened. 6. The State respondents thereafter issued the impugned letter dated 17/11/2025 to M/s. Zoram Venture, stating that the technical bid of M/s. Zoram Venture was found to be non-responsive and the Joint Venture (JV) Agreement and Power of Attorney had been signed by Zoram Venture only. Further, the seal and signature of the partners of Zoram Venture were not found available. Though the actual annual turnover of the alleged JV partners i.e. M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FS & T Electricals had also been submitted, they could not be considered to be the partner firms of the JV, as a valid JV agreement had not been submitted. As the Page No.# 3/11 bid had been submitted by M/s. Zoram Venture, only the annual turnover of M/s. Zoram Venture had been considered for evaluation, which showed that the annual turnover between 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 was only Rs. 5.8 crores, which was below the eligibility requirement as per the Standard Bidding Document Clause 2(ii). 7. The appellant M/s. FS & T Electricals being aggrieved, approached the learned Single Bench vide WP(C) No. 158/2025, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directing the respondents to consider the bid of the respondent no. 4 as a non-responsive bid, on account of submission of invalid EMD amount and also to issue a direction to evaluate the appellant’s bid by considering the JV Agreement dated 11/11/2025. They also prayed that a direction should be issued to the CBI to conduct an investigation into the matter. 8. The appellant’s case is that though the appellant had not submitted a JV Agreement duly signed by all the 3 partners of the JV, all the three partners of the JV had submitted their annual turnovers as per the Standard Bidding Documents Clause 2(ii), which showed that they had met the minimum turnover requirement (bench mark) of Rs. 14.36 crores. Thus, the State respondents could not have rejected the appellant’s technical bid as being non-responsive, as the bid of the JV had been submitted by the lead partner of the JV, i.e. M/s. Zoram Venture. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue could have been clarified by the State respondents, if they had asked for a clarification, in which case, the appellant would have provided the State respondents with a JV Agreement duly signed by all the 3 partners, i.e., M/s. Zoram Venture, M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FS & T Electricals. He thus submits that the same was a curable defect, as mentioned in Ground ‘A’ of the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in a similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Page No.# 4/11 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr. (arising out of SLP(C) No. 1940/2025), held that clause 5(D) therein merely states that the appellant would be entitled to use past experience of a previous consortium/JV in the event its proportionate share was defined in the JV Agreement, failing which the past experience shall be attributed to the lead partner. The Supreme Court thus held that Clause 5(D) did not mandate the submission of the JV agreement itself, to satisfy such criteria. 11. The appellant's counsel thus submits that in the present case also, there is nothing in the NIT which requires the appellant, which is a joint venture, to submit their JV agreement. As such, the rejection of the appellant's technical bid on the ground that the JV agreement submitted by them did not contain the signatures of all the joint venture partners, could not be a ground to reject the technical bid of the appellant, when the annual turnover of all the three partners of the JV, which were submitted with the bid of M/s. Zoram Venture, when added together, showed their annual turnover meeting the minimum criteria of Rs. 14.36 crores. 12. The learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand, submits that even though the NIT in the present case does not specifically require a JV to submit their JV agreement, M/s. Zoram Venture had submitted a JV agreement along with it’s bid. As such, when a JV agreement had been submitted, it was naturally expected of the respondent authorities to verify whether the JV agreement was a valid agreement/document or not. In the absence of the signatures of 2 out of the 3 JV partners of the JV in the JV agreement, it could not be said that there was a valid joint venture made up of (1) M/s. Zoram Venture, (2) M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and (3) M/s. FS & T Electricals. As such, any documents submitted by M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FS & T Electricals could not be considered to be documents of a bidder or a valid JV. As such, there was no infirmity in the rejection of the bid of the M/s. Zoram Venture. Page No.# 5/11 13. The learned counsel for the State respondents also submits that there was no infirmity in the documents submitted by respondent no. 4. The learned State Counsel also submits that the work is of major importance, inasmuch as, the Transformers providing electricity to 1/3rd of Aizawl city are overloaded and replacement of the same have to be made, besides other works to be done, on emergency basis. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the work order had been issued to the respondent no. 4 on 28/11/2025. However, due to a stay order having been issued by the learned Single Judge, the work had been stalled for a number of months. However, with the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the State respondents and the respondent no. 4 have started their work in right earnest. In fact, mobilization fund of Rs. 4.547 crores has been released to the respondent no. 4 on 01/07/2026 and the project has to be completed by May, 2027, thereby leaving only a period of 10 months for the respondents to complete the project. She also submits as per the Standard Bidding Document at clause 6, it has been provided that an incomplete and / or ambiguous and/or conditional bid and/or bid submitted late is liable to be ignored/summarily rejected. Further, clause 2(vi) Part-I (1)(2) & (3) of the Instruction to Tenderers (ITT) requires documents related to eligibility criteria, is as follows :- “(vi) Tenderers should submit the following along with their tenders: The Tenderer should submit the bids in two parts. Part-I :- Documents related to eligibility criteria which contain the following documents: “1) The complete annual reports together with Audited statement of accounts of the company(ies)/Firm(s) duly signed by charter accountant for last three years preceding the date of submission of the 'Application'. If the applicants is joint venture, Audited Statement of all the companies/firms should be submitted. 2) Copies of original documents defining the constitutions or legal status, place of registration and principal place of business; written power of attorney of the signatory of the "Applicant" to commit the plant. Page No.# 6/11 3) Copy of Joint Venture Power of Attorney for Joint Venture Applicant.” 14. The learned Counsel for the State respondents submits that as the appellant was not a Joint Venture at the time of submission of it’s bid, the disqualification of the bid of M/s. Zoram Venture was justified. 15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16. The present appeal involves two issues. One issue is with regard to whether there was any mistake committed on the part of the State Respondents in rejecting the technical bid of the M/s. Zoram Venture, when the Joint Venture Agreement submitted by M/s. Zoram Venture along with it’s bid, to prove that it was a joint venture, did not contain the signatures of all the alleged JV partners. 17. Clause 2(i) & (ii) of the Standard Bidding Document reads as follows :- “2. Qualifying Requirement : Qualification of a bidder will be based on meeting the minimum criteria specified below:- (i) Submission of Earnest money. (ii) Average Annual Financial Turn over during the immediate last five (5) consecutive financial years should be more than 14.36 Crores (30 percent of estimated cost put to tender.” 18. In the present case, Clause 2(ii) of the Standard Bidding Document required the bidder's average annual financial turnover during the last five consecutive financial years to be more than Rs. 14.36 crores. It appears that clause 2(vi) Part-I (2) of the ITT requires the JV to submit their JV status. Assuming that the NIT does not require submission of a JV agreement, M/s. Zoram Venture had submitted a JV agreement along with it’s bid, as it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that M/s. Zoram Venture was the lead partner of the JV. The said JV agreement has Page No.# 7/11 however not signed by 2 out of the 3 alleged JV partners. There lies the difference between the present case and the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the JV agreement has been submitted and the same has not been signed by 2 out of the 3 alleged JV partners, it cannot be said that there was a validly constituted JV at the time of submission of the bid of the appellant. As such, it cannot be said that there was any wrong doing on the part of the State Respondents, in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant. The separate annual turnover of the 3 alleged partners of the JV cannot thus be considered to be the combined turnover of the JV, due to absence of signatures in the JV agreement. As held by the Supreme Court, a decision is an authority only for what it decides and not for what logically follows from it. A little difference in facts changes the precedential value of a decision. A decision would have to be understood strictly within the context of the specific facts and cannot be treated to be an absolute mathematical formula, like a Euclid's theorem. 19. When M/s. Zoram Venture is the alleged lead partner, who had submitted it’s bid along with a JV agreement showing that M/s. Zoram Venture, M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FS & T Electricals made up the joint venture, the State respondents could not have ignored the said JV agreement. Assuming that though the NIT may not require submission of a JV agreement, the same has been submitted by a bidder, to prove that it was a JV. There was no infirmity in the State respondents examining the said document, when the same had been submitted, as it would not have been reasonable to ignore it. As there was no signature of M/s. Semco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FS & T Electricals in the JV agreement submitted by M/s. Zoram Venture along with its bid, it cannot be said that there was a valid JV existing on the date of submission of the bid by M/s. Zoram Venture. 20. On the other hand, Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), no JV agreement had been submitted by the tenderer therein, though it had submitted the required documents as per Clause 5(D) of the NIT. The Supreme Court Page No.# 8/11 in the above case, held that there could not have been disqualification of the JV, who had not submitted their JV agreement in terms of Clause 5(D) of the NIT in that case. In the present case, JV agreement has been submitted by the alleged lead partner of the JV, i.e. M/s. Zoram Venture. When the JV agreement has been examined and it was found that 2 of the partners had not signed the agreement, it cannot be said that there was no fault on the part of the State respondents in not adding up the annual turnover of all the 3 alleged partners of the JV to see whether they had the minimum average financial turnover for being qualified as a tenderer. As such, we are of the view that the facts of the present case and the facts in Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), are not the same. Consequently, the decision in the case of Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case. 21. With regard to the second issue, i.e., whether the appellant can challenge the award of the contract to the respondent no. 4, on the ground that the respondent no. 4's tender did not meet the requirements of the NIT, when the bid of M/s. Zoram Venture has been disqualified, it would be profitable to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that when a tenderer's bid has been disqualified, the said unsuccessful tenderer cannot make a challenge to the alleged deficiencies of the other tenderers, who are still in the fray. 22. In the case of In the case of TATA Motors Limited Vs. the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3897/2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the view of the High Court that once the bid of the TATA Motors had been declared as non responsive and having stood disqualified from the tender process, it could not have entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST to declare the successful bidder. 23. The Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, held that any Page No.# 9/11 judicial relief at the instance of a party who does not fulfill the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced. 24. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court has held as follows- “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.” 25. It would have been a different case if the appellant was declared a successful tenderer and thereby made a challenge to the selection of the selected tenderer, on grounds that the selected tenderer's bid was not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the NIT. However, the same is not the issue in the present case. As held by the Supreme Court in the TATA Motors Limited Vs. the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others (Supra) and Raunaq International (Supra), judicial relief at the instance of a party who does not fulfill the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced. 26. In the case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court held that contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. Para 22 of Jagdish Mandal (Supra) is reproduced herein below as follows :- “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the Page No.# 10/11 decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 27. In the present case, when we consider the questions to be asked in respect of the present case, in terms of the decision in Jagdish Mandal (Supra), we find the answers to be in the negative. Thus, in terms of the above case, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the award of the contract to the respondent no. 4 in exercise of the power of judicial review. Page No.# 11/11 28. The present NIT is with regard to providing electricity to 1/3rd of Aizawl City and which pertains to an essential requirement of day-to-day life. 29. In view of the reasons stated above, we find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant