Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010226392025 2026:GAU-AS:12168 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6517/2025 M/S VISHNU ENGINEERING CORPORATION PREMISES NO. 19 BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET KOLKATA - 700072 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI DEV GUPTA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS SON OF SRI VISHAL KUMAR GUPTA RESIDING AT 19 BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET KOLKATA - 700072 WEST BENGAL. VERSUS THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR AIDC LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT R. G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI 781024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2:MSTC LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT BSNL EXCHANGE BUILDING BELTOLA - BAISISTHA ROAD WIRELESS RANI BAGAN GUWAHATI - 781028 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ------------ Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. R. Karnani, Adv. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Mr. D. Deka, Standing Counsel, AIDC. Mr. P. S. Bhattacharya, CGC. Page No.# 2/19 Date on which judgment was reserved : 02.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. R. Karnani, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. D. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, AIDC/ Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P. S. Bhattacharya, learned CGC for Respondent No. 2. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the tender process corresponding to Auction No. MSTC/GHY/Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited/5/Guwahati/25-26/25321 dated 07.08.2025. 3. The summary of the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are provided hereinbelow: 3.1. The Petitioner is a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Vishnu Engineering Corporation, having its place of business in Kolkata, West Bengal. The Petitioner has been in the Page No.# 3/19 business of dismantling large ocean-going vessels, cargo and tanker ships within docks of Kolkata Port Trust and its business revolves around purchase and sale of scrap materials auctioned by the government undertakings, public sector enterprises and other statutory bodies. 3.2. The Petitioner’s case is that the Petitioner was completely unaware of any tender or auction floated by the Respondents on 07.08.2025 concerning the demolition and disposal of the plant and machinery and other structures of the defunct Cachar Paper Mill in Panchgram in the State of Assam. 3.3. It is contended that during its interactions with certain other bidders, the Petitioner came to learn about the issuance of a detailed Auction Catalogue dated 07.08.2025 for the demolition and disposal works involving Cachar Paper Mill. After getting the information, the Petitioner obtained a copy of the catalogue.The Petitioner came to learn that the e-auction had already been conducted on 13.10.2025, but the sale has not yet been finalized or awarded due to interim orders passed by this Court in connected writ petition, namely, WP(C) 5975/2025 (SPS Steels Rolling Mills Limited). It is contended by the Petitioner that having learnt that such a highvalue auction had escaped its notice, upon investigation about the mode of publication, it learnt that the aforesaid Auction Catalogue was published only on MSTC e-auction portal and nowhere else. It is contended that the Auction Catalogue was neither published on Page No.# 4/19 any government portal nor it was published on State Public Procurement Portal (SPPP).It is contended that the Petitioner was taken by surprise due to the fact that the Auction Catalogue was not published in any national newspapers. It is, therefore, contended by the Petitioner that due to such non- publication and/or very limited publicity, the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the aforesaid Auction. It is contended that MSTC website is accessible only to a limited circle of registered users and therefore, there was no sufficient publicity about the tender process. 3.4. Faced with the aforesaid situation and being deprived of its inability to participate in the aforesaid auction, the Petitioner submitted a detailed written representation on 30.10.2025 to the Respondent Authorities calling upon them to explain the inadequate publicity, stringent pre-qualification criteria and apparent exclusion of competition. In the aforesaid Representation, the Petitioner clearly stated its readiness and willingness to participate even at that stage and indicated a standing bid of Rs.120 Crores for the tendered assets, which are yet to be finally awarded in the said auction. It is contended that no reply to the aforesaid Representation was received by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that the Notice Inviting Tender was neither uploaded on the State Public Procurement Portal (SPPP), nor was any abridged notice published in newspapers as required under the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020, which mandated such publication to ensure wide Page No.# 5/19 participation. Therefore, it is contended that confining publication solely to the MSTC portal, the Respondents breached statutory obligations and deprived the public of equal opportunity to compete.The Petitioner also contended that the Pre-Qualification Criteria (PQC) demanded an average annual turnover of Rs.30 Crores and completion of one single work of Rs.100 Crores within 10 years. It is contended that such thresholds have no rational nexus to the nature of work being simple demolition and clearance. It is contended that the said criteria have been solely designed to exclude competent medium-scale competitors, thus eliminating competition and favouring selected few. The Petitioner also contended that Pre- Qualification Criteria stipulated the possession of OHSAS 18001 certificate, which, in fact, had become obsolete in 2021 and the same has been replaced globally by ISO 45001:2018 certificate. Therefore, such an obsolete condition shows the non- application of mind on the part of the Respondent Authorities and the same is tailor-made to suit arbitrary interest of the Respondents. 3.5. In view of the aforesaid grievances, mainly due to the fact of its inability to take part in the auction process as there was no sufficient publication of the tender or auction floated by the Respondents, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. An Additional Affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner with due Page No.# 6/19 permission from this Court, whereby the Petitioner has brought certain certificates and documents showing its credentials and experience in similar kind of works. 5. An Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by the Respondent No. 1, wherein, the Respondent No. 1 has denied that there was no sufficient publication of the concerned auction and therefore, the Petitioner was deprived of its participation in the auction process. It is the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 2, i.e. the MSTC Limitedis a Government of India Enterprise under the Ministry of Steel, having its e-auction portal, which provides maximum publicity of any bid issuedby governments. The Respondent No. 1 stated that the NIT dated 07.08.2025 regarding the auction was published in the portal of Respondent No.2. It is stated that the NIT got wide publicity and viewership which can be seen from the fact that altogether 20 (Twenty) bidders from all over the country, have participated in the tender process. It is stated that the Petitioner being a business organization handling similar worksshould have been vigilant enough to not have missed the instant NIT for the auction. 6. It is also the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that after a Cabinet decision, it was decided that the NIT should be published in the Respondent No. 2’s e-portal who has wide publicity. It was decided due to the fact that MSTC Limited is a Government of India Undertaking having wide publicity and viewership. It is also contended that the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 is not applicable in the instant case, as the Government has already decided Page No.# 7/19 to put the NIT in the e-portal of MSTC portal, which has larger publicity and viewership and also due to the fact that the portal belongs to the Ministry of Steel which is a Central Government functionary. Therefore, there is no wrong committed by Respondent No. 1 by putting the NIT of the auction in the aforesaid e-portal.It is stated that the Cabinet decision of the Government regarding publishing of the NIT of the auction in the MSTC portal is purely due to the intention to increase its reach and include wider participation from all parts of the country. 7. The Respondent No. 1 contended that tender conditions were just and reasonable and have been formulated on the basis of required expertise, safety and experience in handling such disposal. It is stated that the Respondent No. 1, being the issuer of the contract, had all the rights to put the conditions as it deems fit to meet the requirements to get the contract work done taking into account various factors, including public policy.Therefore, it is denied by Respondent No. 1 that the pre-qualifications included in the tender for the auction do not have any rational nexus to the scope of work mentioned in the Auction Document. 8. The Petitioner has filed an Affidavit-in-Reply to the Affidavit-in- Opposition filed by the Respondent No. 1, wherein, the Petitioner has, mostly, reiterated its statements made in the writ petition. The Petitioner reiterated that by non-publication of the NIT in the State portal, i.e. SPPP and in other national newspapers, has curtailed competition in the instant case and bidders like the Petitioner, who Page No.# 8/19 could have easily participated in the auction, have been deprived of such participation.It further reiterated that the pre-qualification criteria set out in the Auction Document do not have any rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved and the same have been included only to favour certain favoured bidders by the Respondent No. 1. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a firm which is into the business of dismantling and purchasing of scrap goods in a large scale and having an experience of 50 years in such business. He submits that only due to the very limited publication of the NIT, which was published only in the e- portal of MSTC Limited, the Petitioner has been deprived of the participation in the auction process.He submits that by such action of the Respondent No. 1, the competition in the bid has been curtailed, which should not have been the purpose and object of a State authority like the Respondent No. 1. He submits that by not publishing in national newspapers and the State Public Procurement Portal in terms of the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020, the Respondent No. 1 has violated the terms of the aforesaid Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020.He submits that since the finalization of the contract is yet to happen and the Petitioner is willing to submit a bid of Rs.120 crores for the scope of work mentioned in the Auction Document, the Petitioner should be allowed to participate in the auction process. 10. On the other hand, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General Page No.# 9/19 representing the Respondent No. 1 submits that the instant writ petition is totally misconceived and should be summarily dismissed. He submits that there was wide circulation of the NIT due to its publication in the e-portal of MSTC Limited (Respondent No. 2), which fact can be ascertained by the participation of as many as 20 (Twenty) bidders from all over the country.Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that there was no wide publicity of the NIT for the auction is totally invalid andfalse.He further submits that the auction process has already come to a conclusion and only the work has to be awarded to the highest bidder and the Petitioner has approached the Court more than a month after the conclusion of the auction process, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits that the tendering authority, i.e. the Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to put its own terms and conditions to meet the requirements of the scope of work and the same cannot be challenged by a person who has not participated in the bid itself. Therefore, he submits that the instant writ petition does not have any merit for consideration and the same should be dismissed at once. 11. It is seen that the Petitioner is not a participant in the bid and it has approached this Court more than a month after the conclusion of the auction process. 12. Though it has been contended by the Petitioner that due to non publication of the NIT of the auction in national newspapers and the State Public Procurement Portal, there is limited publicity of the NIT and therefore, the Petitioner missed the NIT and has been deprived Page No.# 10/19 of his right to participate in the tender process, the Petitioner has also contended that it is willingto participate even at this stage and indicated a standing bid of Rs.120 crores for the tendered assets, which are yet to be finally awarded in the auction. 13. It is also seen that the Petitioner has challenged the thresholds, i.e.the pre-qualification criteria set for the auction. It is seen that the Petitioner has contended that there is no rational nexus of fixing such thresholds simply because the work relates to demolition and clearance.The Petitioner has also contended that the pre-qualification of possessing OHSAS 18001 certification is also not required as it has already become obsolete and the same has been replaced by ISO 45001:2018. From the above, it is seen that the main challenge of the Petitioner in the instant case is that the Petitioner is deprived of its right to participate in a public tender floated by the Respondent No. 1 due to the fact of limited publicity of the NIT for the auction. Along with the aforesaid main contention, the Petitioner has also challenged the terms and conditions of the Auction Document and the threshold fixed in the Auction Document for the auction. 14. From the materials and pleadings, it is seen that MSTC Limited (Respondent No. 2) is a Government of India entity under the Ministry of Steel, Government of India. MSTC Limited has an e-portal which is being widely used by government entities for publication of their NITs or Auction Documents. This e-portal can be accessed by any one or entity who has registered itself in the aforesaid e-portal. Since it is a Government of India portal having national reach, it Page No.# 11/19 seems, it has wide publicity and viewership. In the instant case, the Petitioner has contended that it has missed out the NIT of the concerned auction as the same was not published in national newspapers as well as in the State Public Procurement Portal. 15. However, from the facts of the instant case, it is seen that as many as 20 (Twenty) participants from all over the country have participated in the Bid. Therefore, the Petitionerbeing a business entity who claims to have been in the business for the last 50 years, it is surprising that the Petitioner was not vigilant enough to have missed the NIT for the present auction.From the pleadings of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has itself admitted that the Petitioner has been using or accessing the MSTC e-portal for various kinds of government contracts. In its Additional Affidavit at Para 6, the Petitioner has itself stated that the Petitioner firm is registered in Respondent No. 2's portal. To support the aforesaid fact, the Petitioner has provided its registered ID of the MSTC portal, being Registration No. 28203. The Petitioner has also provided a profile downloaded from the website of MSTC, which is annexed as Annexure-C to the Additional Affidavit.The aforesaid facts make it clear that since the MSTC portal is accessible only to registered users and the Petitioner being a registered user, has not been sufficiently vigilant and thereby missed the NIT for the instant auction. Therefore, if anybody has to be blamed for missing out on the NIT of this auction, that person can be only the Petitioner and none else. Therefore, this Court, in its considered opinion, does not find any Page No.# 12/19 merit in the argument of the Petitioner that due to non-publication of the NIT in national newspapers and the State Public Procurement Portal, the Petitioner has missed out the NIT, and thereby, it has been deprived of its right to participate in a public tender like the instant auction. 16. As far as the contentions of the Petitioner regarding the fixing of threshold and pre-qualification criteria and other terms and conditions are concerned, this Court does not find much merit in those submissions. It is also a fact that the Petitioner is not a participant in the whole tender process and it has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition only after the conclusion of the auction process. 17. It is a settled law that in a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a Constitutional Court has limited jurisdiction of review of a commercial contract. The terms and conditions of a contract being created and written by the issuer of the contract or the employer as per its requirements to meet the scope of work, the same are the prerogative of the issuer of the contract or the employer, a Constitutional Court should refrain from interfering unless any arbitrary or mala fide or biasness is alleged in awarding the contract or the terms and conditions are such which do not have any reasonable or rational nexus with the object to be achieved. 18. The power of judicial review in contractual and tender/auction matters have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena Page No.# 13/19 of cases. 19. As regards the scope of judicial review of government contracts and auctions,in the case of M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Limited-vs- State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012)8 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as follows: "23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited; (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender Page No.# 14/19 document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government”. 20. Similarly, in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6SCC 651, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the issue of judicial review viz-a-viz administrative discretion in deciding matters relating to contracts and auctions, held as follows: “94.(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative Page No.# 15/19 decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 21. It is also a settled law that a party which has not participated in the tender process has an extremely limited right to challenge the tender process. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Highways Authority of India-vs-Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 243, wherein at paragraph 20, it was observed as under: Page No.# 16/19 “20 While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no tittle of doubt that the right of the claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from Page No.# 17/19 participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non- fulfilment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever”. Page No.# 18/19 22. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the auction process has already progressed to an advanced stage and the only thing remaining is the award of the contract. It is also observed that the tender process has been completed without any challenge to the terms and conditions thereof, although the instant writ petition along with certain other petitions have been filed after the process has come to an end. Since the evaluations of Technical Bids as well as Financial Bids have already been completed, third-party rights have already been created. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that, at this stage, it is not permissible for any partyespecially a party that has not participated in the tender processto disrupt or derail the auction process that has been concluded except award of the contract. 23. In the instant case for whatever reason, the Petitioner was not a participant in the tender process of the Auction in hand. Although the Petitioner has alleged that due to non-publicity of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) by the Respondent No. 1 in a sufficient manner, the Petitioner has missed out the NIT and thereby, deprived of participating in the tender process, the same contention cannot be accepted, reasons for which, have already been discussed above and the same may not be reiterated here. 24. Taking into account the entire facts of the case and the principles of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition does not have any merit and therefore, the same stands dismissed. Page No.# 19/19 25. Parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant