IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya W.P.A. 931 of 2026 M/s. Subham Construction Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner For the State For the respondent no.4 : Mr. Promit Majumder Ms. Rinka Chakraborty : Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, AGP, Ms. Esha Acharya : Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Mayank Bhandari Mr. Vivek Saha Mr. Binayak Bandopadhyay Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh Heard on : 27/07/2026 Judgment on : 27/07/2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. :- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision of the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Irrigation and 2 Waterways Department and the Appellate Authority dated March 30, 2026 and the Memo dated April 27, 2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer, attached to Chief Engineer North East Club Road, Jalpaiguri in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner, a registered partnership concern, carrying on business under the name and style “M/s. Subham Construction” claims to be engaged in the execution of civil and infrastructure projects under various Government departments and its instrumentalities. Petitioner claims to have participated in a tender process floated by the Office of the Chief Engineer (North East), Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal, e-NIT No.WBIW/SE/CE(NE)/NIT-04(e)/2025-26 dated January 30, 2026. Petitioner alleges that though the private respondent, who also participated in the said e-tender, was disqualified by the respondent authority but was subsequently declared as qualified in the technical bid. 3. Petitioner has challenged the decisions of the respondent authorities in declaring the private respondent as a “Qualified” bidder. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Notice Inviting e-Tender (for short “NIT”) specifically states that the intending contractors are required to download the e-tender documents directly from the websites and submit tender through online mode. He further submits that though the NIT specifically provides that no offline will be accepted and considered during tender 3 evaluation stage from the bidders, the respondent authorities have allowed the private respondent to submit documents in physical form at the tender evaluation stage. He submits that the documents which were submitted by the private respondent subsequent to the submission of documents through online mode were taken into consideration by the respondent authority by deviating from the procedure laid down in NIT and was subsequently declared as qualified. He further submits that the authorities have also violated the procedure laid down under clause 15.4 of the NIT by not adhering to the timelines stipulated therein. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the State and its instrumentalities are bound to adhere the norms, standards and procedures laid down by such authority while floating a tender and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. He submits that if the State and its instrumentalities, while evaluating a tender, departs from the standards, norms and procedures arbitrarily, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if such decision making process is vitiated by unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 6. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, reported at AIR Online 2006 (SC) 645. He thus submits that the Appellate Authority acted in an arbitrary manner by allowing the documents to be submitted by the private respondent at the 4 Technical Evaluation Stage and getting the same authenticated subsequently. 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that the private respondent submitted an online generated BOQ, completion certificate as well as statement showing the actual quantity executed in support of the credentials during submission of online bid. He submits that immediately after the private respondent came to know from the decision of the Superintending Engineer dated March 11, 2026 that the private respondent has been disqualified as the BOQ relating to credential was not authenticated by the issuing authority, the private respondent firm immediately thereafter approached the Superintending Engineer by a letter dated March 13, 2026 thereby clarifying the points on which the bid of the private respondent was cancelled. He submits that the Superintending Engineer did not consider the clarification made by the private respondent by referring Note (i) of 4.2B of the NIT. He submits immediately thereafter the private respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority vide letter dated March 17, 2026 and the Appellate Authority after hearing the private respondent and examining the relevant documents requested the Superintending Engineer concerned to verify the authenticity of the relevant documents in support of the technical credential submitted by the private respondent. He submits that as per the direction of the Appellate Authority, the relevant documents has been verified by 5 the Executive Engineer, Jalpaiguri Highway Division, Jalpaiguri and the same was found to be genuine and actual and accordingly the private respondent was declared as “Qualified”. 8. Mr. Ghosh submits that the authority can decide whether a term of NIT is essential or not and such decision by the authority issuing the NIT should be respected and such decision cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers of Judicial Review. 9. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors., reported at (2016) 8 SCC 622. He also places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., reported at (2012) 8 SCC 216 with regard to the scope of the power of judicial review in contractual matters. 10. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the documents submitted by the private respondent were verified from the pre-qualification credential issuing authority and after such verification it was found that the documents submitted by the private respondent was genuine and actual. He submits that upon being satisfied with the genuineness of the credential the private respondent was declared as “Qualified”. 11. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. 6 12. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondent was allowed to submit documents through offline mode at the Technical Evaluation Stage in violation of the terms and conditions laid down in the NIT. 13. In course of hearing of this writ petition on July 23, 2026, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent filed a bunch of documents including the letter dated March 13, 2026 issued by the private respondent and addressed to the Superintending Engineer making certain clarifications with regard to the disqualification of the private respondent in technical bid evaluation sheet; the response of the Superintending Engineer vide memo no.236 dated March 16, 2026; the appeal petition filed by the private respondent dated March 17, 2026 and the memo dated March 30, 2026 issued by the Appellate Authority which were taken on record. Photocopies of the bunch of documents filed by the private respondent was directed to be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner and it is not in dispute that the said documents have been supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner. 14. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader also files the copy of the memo no.295/W471-J dated April 1, 2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer and the memo no.418 dated April 6, 2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jalpaiguri Highway Division, Jalpaiguri, which were taken on record. Photocopies of such 7 documents were also supplied by Mr. Bhattacharjee to the learned advocate for the petitioner. 15. The hearing of the writ petition was adjourned on July 23, 2026 to enable the learned advocate for the petitioner to consider such documents and to make submissions on the next date. 16. It reveals from the documents placed before this Court, that the petitioner submitted an online generated BOQ; completion certificate and a statement showing the actual quantity executed in support the credential at the time of submission of online bid. The completion certificate and the statement showing the actual quantity executed in support of the credential were found to be duly authenticated by the issuing authority. 17. The only dispute is with regard to non-authentication of the BOQ relating to credential submitted by the private respondent. 18. Record reveals that the Appellate Authority after considering the documents submitted by the private respondent issued a memo dated March 30, 2026 directing the Superintending Engineer attached to the Chief Engineer, North East, Irrigation and Waterways Directorate to verify the authenticity of the relevant documents in support of the technical credential submitted by the private respondent from the Executive Engineer, Jalpaiguri Highway Division, P.W. (Roads) Directorate, Jalpaiguri before taking a final decision. 8 19. The question that arises for consideration is whether such verification of the technical credential as submitted by the private respondent was done in violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT. 20. At this stage it would be beneficial to take note of Note (i) appearing after point no.4.2B of the NIT which is extracted hereinafter:- “Note: i. It is desirable but not mandatory that all documents stated above in PDF files shall be uploaded by bidders only in specified designated folders. No off-line document will be accepted and considered during tender evaluation stage from bidders before publishing result of final selection of L1 by publication of FBE sheet. Verification of authenticity of bid documents during bid evaluation by TEC [Vide Departmental Memorandum No:-05-- /W/2025-26, dated.-26.06.2025 and its Corrigendum Order No.-06-W/2025-26, dated 14.07.2025] may be undertaken from bidders or directly from PQ Credential issuing authority.” (emphasis supplied) 21. After going through the Note (i) this Court is of the considered view that though no offline document can be accepted and considered during tender evaluation stage from bidders before publishing result of final selection of L1 by publication of FBE sheet but verification of authenticity of bid documents during bid evaluation by Tender 9 Evaluating Committee may be undertaken from bidders or directly from Pre-Qualification Credential issuing authority. 22. In the case on hand the private respondent has submitted the BOQ through online mode along with various other documents in support thereof. 23. At this stage it would not be out of place to note that immediately after the Superintending Engineer disqualified the private respondent on March 11, 2026 on the ground that BOQ related to credential was not authenticated, the private respondent sought to clarify such issue by a letter dated March 13, 2026. 24. In the letter dated March 13, 2026, the private respondent specifically stated that they had submitted the system generated BOQ related to credentials, hence it was unsigned. The private respondent also stated in the said letter that the authenticity of the credentials may be cross verified from the concerned department if there was any iota of doubt regarding the genuineness of the credentials. 25. The Superintending Engineer by an order dated March 16, 2026 referred to Note (i) of 4.2B and stated that no offline document will be accepted and considered during tender evaluation stage. 26. The learned advocate for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the said order dated March 16, 2026 and contends that the Superintending Engineer was right in not allowing submission of online document. 10 27. To the mind of this Court, the Superintending Engineer failed to appreciate that Note (i) of para 4.2B of NIT enables the TEC to verify the authenticity of bid documents during bid evaluation by TEC. 28. When it is the specific stand of the private respondent that the BOQ does not bear any signature as it was a “System downloaded BOQ”, it was well open to the authority to verify the authenticity of bid documents during bid evaluation by TEC directly from PQ Credential issuing authority. 29. The Superintending Engineer failed to verify the BOQ submitted by the private respondent which power has been vested upon the authorities by the NIT. 30. Being aggrieved by the order of the Superintending Engineer, private respondent filed the appeal on the very next day i.e. on March 17, 2026. 31. In order to verify the authenticity of the bid documents the Appellate Authority directed the concerned Superintending Engineer to verify the BOQ i.e. the credential submitted by the private respondent from the credential issuing authority. 32. Note (i) of 4.2B specifically empowers the verification of authenticity of bid documents directly from the credential issuing authority. In the case on hand, the Appellate Authority only directed the documents submitted by the private respondent through online mode to be verified from the credential issuing authority. The said credential was accordingly verified and found to be genuine. Thus, it 11 is not the case of submission of documents in physical form at the tender evaluation stage. Verification of authenticity of bid documents from the credential issuing authority is permissible as per the terms and conditions consolidated in the NIT. 33. To the mind to this Court, the Appellate Authority did not deviate from the procedures laid down in the NIT during the tender evaluation stage. The Appellate Authority was right in directing verification of the BOQ from the Issuing Authority. 34. Point No.15.4 of the NIT stipulates certain timelines for the purpose of performing certain acts. 35. Immediately after the order rejecting the technical bid of the private respondent was published, the private respondent submitted a letter clarifying such aspect and since such prayer was rejected by the concerned Superintending Engineer, the private respondent immediately approached the Appellate Authority. The private respondent authority cannot be faulted for any delay on the part of the authorities in disposing of the appeal. 36. That apart, it appears from the documents placed on record that initially the Superintending Engineer rejected the prayer of the private respondent for submission of BOQ through online mode and, thereafter, the Appellate Authority took some time to get the documents verified from the credential issuing authority. Merely on the ground that the entire decision on the issue involved could not be taken within the timeline stipulated in Point No.15.4, this Court is 12 not inclined to interfere with the decision on the part of the authorities in declaring the private respondent as “Qualified”. 37. In M/s. Michigan Rubber (India) (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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”; and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there should be not interference under Article 226. 38. In the case on hand a credential submitted by a party participating in the tender process was only verified from the credential issuing authority. Adoption of such process cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Such act is also permissible under the NIT. Decision taken on the basis of verification done by the authority from the competent authority cannot be said to be an unreasonable and irrational one. 39. Except certain vague allegations, no specific allegation has been made in this writ petition that the action has been taken by the authority in order to favour the private respondent. 13 40. In Central Coalfields Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled proposition of law that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected and even if the terms is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders. If the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary even that decision should be respected. 41. In the case on hand this Court has already observed that the authorities have not deviated or departed from the procedures laid down in the NIT. 42. In Jagdish Mandal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point and the Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. The said decision cannot be come to the aid of the petitioner. On the other hand, it supports the case of the private respondent. 43. For the all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority dated March 30, 2026 directing the Superintending Engineer to verify the authenticity of the relevant documents and the subsequent decision of the 14 Superintending Engineer declaring the private respondent as qualified vide order dated April 27, 2026. 44. In view of the above observations WPA 931 of 2026 stands dismissed. 45. There will be no order as to costs. 46. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) Item No.41 Court No.-10 Aritra (A.R. Ct.)