Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010167072026 2026:GAU-AS:11608 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4262/2026 MS R AND B INFRA PROJECT LTD REGISTERED OFFICE B-1, NEELA APARTMENT, OPP. MANDPESHWAR IND ESTATE, S.V.P. ROAD, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI 400092.CORPORATE OFFICE D-1, GROUND FLOOR, BLDG. NO. 6, SAT KRIPA CHS LTD., NEAR NATURAL ICE CREAM, PREM NAGAR, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI 400092. REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/SIGNATORY SRI KAPULURU RAMASWAMY, S/O AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HPUSE NO 24 A, DHARMAPUR PATH, BELTOLA, KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI- 781028, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110011. 2:THE BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION (BRO) REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR (EPC) SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD NARAINA DELHI CANTONMENT NEW DELHI 110010. 3:THE BORDER ROAD ORGANIZATION (BRO) REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER (P) VARTAK C/O 99 APO PIN 931716 TEZPUR. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER C/O 99 APO VARTAK (P) Page No.# 2/11 TEZPUR PIN 931716. 5:TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 6:MACCAFERRI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS IS 113/1 AMAR INDUSTRIAL EST ANGHERI KURLA ROAD SAKINAKA MUMBAI CITY MUMBAI MAHARASTRA INDIA- 400072 7:PIONEER FUNDATIONS ENGINEERS LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-2 509 5TH FLOOR BOOMERANG CHANDIVALI FARM ROAD POWAI ANDHERI (EA ST) MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA INDIA- 400072 8:SPAR GEO INFRA PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WZ-92-C 2ND AND 3RD RAJA GARDEN DELHI INDIA- 11001 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R Singha Advocates for the respondent(s) : Ms. A Gayan CGC Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Page No.# 3/11 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 14.08.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : No Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. R Singha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A Gayan, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid, the information of which was uploaded on 29.07.2026 and subsequently informed to the Petitioner vide the communication dated 01.08.2026. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that a request for proposal for “slope stabilisation measures at km 114.200 & 120.500 on hill side on road Balipara-Charduar-Tawang under 91/RCC/14 BRTF of (p), Vartak in West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh” was issued by the Border Roads Organization on Engineering, Procurement and Construction, (EPC) mode, vide the Notice Inviting Bid dated 09.05.2026. In terms with the said Notice Inviting Bid, the eligibility and qualification requirements of the bidders were briefly stated in the table mentioned in the said Notice Page No.# 4/11 Inviting Bid. Insofar as the Threshold Technical Capacity, the criteria was mentioned at Rs.22.98 crores, with specific reference to Clause 2.2.2(i) as detailed out in Section 1 of the Notice Inviting Bid. Insofar as regards the Technical Capacity, the description was mentioned with specific reference to the criteria and the request for proposal Clause No.2.2.2.2(ii). For the sake of convenience, this Court finds it pertinent to reproduce the table of the Notice Inviting Bid, more particularly, at Sl. No.3, which is at Page 53 to the writ petition: S/No RFP Clause No. Description Criteria 1 ………………………… 2 ………………………… 3 Clause-2.2.2.2(ii) (Technical Capacity) i. Two similar completed works costing not less than amount equal to 25% of estimated cost each. The completed works shall consists steel wire mesh, Rock fall barrier and articulating block mattress. or ii. One similar completed work costing not less than an amount equal to 35% of estimated costs. Rs.7.66 Cr. or Rs.10.72 Cr. Page No.# 5/11 The completed work shall consists steel wire mesh, Rockfall barrier and articulating block mattress. 4. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of Clause 2.2.2.2 (iii) (c) which is the Slope Stabilization/Restoration Projects. As the same has a vital bearing on the present dispute, the said clause is reproduced hereinunder: “2.2.2.2 (iii)(c) Slope Stabilisation/ Restoration Projects: The Sole Bidder or in case the bidder being a joint venture lead member of joint member shall have completed atleast one/ two similar SRW project having Design, Supply and installation of high tensile steel wire mesh of tensile strength minimum 150 kN/m, ETAG 027/EAD certified rockfall barrier with early warning system and Articulating Concrete block mattress of original manufactures (invoice be provided/ uploaded) in the past 7 (seven) financial year preceding the bid due date or till the bid due date, and also the cost of such similar project shall be atleast. i) two similar completed works costing not less than amount equal to 25% of estimated cost. or ii) One similar completed work costing not less than amount equals to 35% of estimated cost. For this purpose, a project shall be considered to be completed, if more than 90% of the value of work has been completed and such completed value of work is equal to or more than the above mentioned criteria. Certificate(s) from the concerned govt. authority/ client shall be required for the same. In case the claimed project/(s) are subcontracting/ JV project in such a case Approval from Govt. Authority/ client is required (restricted to allowable sub contracting limit/JV share in original contract).[D2].” 5. The Petitioner, along with various bidders, submitted their bids Page No.# 6/11 pursuant to the request for proposal. In the Technical Evaluation so carried out, amongst the 5 bidders, the Petitioner along with the bid of another were rejected and bids of 3(three) other parties were accepted. 6. The Petitioner, upon coming to learn about the rejection, submitted a representation on 29.07.2026 itself and taking into account that inspite of the said representation being submitted, the respondents were proceeding with the Tender Evaluation Process, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 07.08.2026. 7. In the meantime, the Petitioner got hold of the communication dated 01.08.2026 by which the Petitioner was informed as to why the Petitioner's technical bid was rejected. This document dated 01.08.2026 was brought on record by the Petitioner subsequently by filing an additional affidavit. 8. From a perusal of the said document, it is apparent that the Petitioner, in terms with Clause 2.2.2.2(iii)(c), though have submitted similar work experience pertaining to Design, Supply, and Installation of high tensile steel wire mesh of tensile strength minimum 150 kN/m, but the Petitioner did not submit work experience pertaining to ETAG 027/EAD Certified Rockfall Barrier with Early Warning System, as well Page No.# 7/11 as Geotextile Articulating Concrete Block Mattress of Original Manufacturer. 9. At this stage, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of the representation which was submitted by the Petitioner on 29.07.2026, wherein the Petitioner at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 submitted that the Petitioner had duly submitted all such documents, but, however, if it was felt that certain documents in respect to the Technical Bid of the Petitioner was found inadequate, the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to submit the shortfall documents in terms of Clause 6.3.5. The representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide the communication dated 07.08.2026, holding inter alia that the bid documents so submitted did not establish the stipulated experience relating to (i). ETAG 027/EAD certified rockfall barrier with early warning system, and (ii).Geotextile Articulating Concrete Block Mattress of the original manufacturer, both of which were mandatory, similar work requirements under the RFP. 10. It was further mentioned in the rejection of the representation that the question of invoking Clause 6.3.5 did not arise, inasmuch as these experience certificates, would not come within the ambit of shortfall documents, as these documents were requisite and essential to be submitted at the time of submission of the bid. It was further mentioned while rejecting the representation of the Petitioner that the Page No.# 8/11 evaluation criteria was uniformly applied to all bidders, and there was neither relaxation of RFP nor unequal treatment. It was also mentioned that acceptance of a bid which did not demonstrate the mandatory eligibility requirements would have prejudiced other bidders and compromised the integrity of the procurement process. The communication dated 07.08.2026 was also brought on record by the Petitioner through the additional affidavit. 11. In the backdrop of the above, the question arises as to whether this Court should entertain the instant writ petition, more particularly, when the stand of the respondents is apparently clear from the communication dated 01.08.2026, as well as the rejection of the Petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2026. 12. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court has duly quoted the requirements, and more particularly to Clause 2.2.2.2 (iii)(c) of the RFP, which categorically mentioned as to what are the similar work experience required. 13. The respondents have categorically mentioned in the communication dated 01.08.2026 that the Petitioner did not submit the requisite similar experience in respect to (i). ETAG 027/EAD certified rockfall barrier with early warning system, and (ii).Geotextile Articulating Concrete Block Mattress of the original manufacturer. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the submission Page No.# 9/11 of Mr. R Singha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, who submits that the major work is the case of Slope Protection, which the Petitioner duly has experience. As regards the other 2(two) works for which similar work experience were required, the said experience pertains to procurement of materials from the vendors and thereupon installing the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that under such circumstances, the rejection of the Petitioner's bid on not having the similar experience certificates in respect to (i). ETAG 027/EAD certified rockfall barrier with early warning system, and (ii).Geotextile Articulating Concrete Block Mattress of the original manufacturer cannot be a reasonable or a rational exercise of the power, as such experience would not materially affect the primary work of Slope Protection. 14. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and has also taken note of the stand of the respondents, as is discernible from the communication dated 01.08.2026 as well as 07.08.2026. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 and more particularly, paragraph No.15, wherein the Supreme Court in clear and Page No.# 10/11 unambiguous terms has observed that the understanding of the terms of the tender should be best left to the tendering authority. The Court, in exercise of the powers under judicial review, should not try to interpret contrary to the stand taken by the tendering authority, unless a case of mala fide or perversity can be shown. The said proposition of law has been further followed in various judgments. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd (supra) being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “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." 15. Taking into account the above proposition of law, the conditions stipulated in Clause 2.2.2.2(iii)(c) of the RFP as well as the stand so taken by the respondents in their communications dated 01.08.2026 and 07.08.2026, to the effect that the requirement of the certificates were essential pertaining to the 2(two) works, namely (i). ETAG 027/EAD certified rockfall barrier with early warning system, and (ii).Geotextile Articulating Concrete Block Mattress of the original manufacturer and further to that, against the others, the provisions Page No.# 11/11 have been applied uniformly, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for being entertained, for which, this Court is not inclined to issue notice in the present proceedings. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant