Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010246602025 2026:GAU-AS:5903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6420/2025 ARINDAM DUTTA A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI ARINDAM DUTTA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM BEING DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI DILIP DHAR, S/O LATE SASHI BHUSHAN DHAR, R/O RONGPUR, SILCHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, ASSAM PUBLIC DEPARTMENT WORKS (ROADS), ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAP) PWRD ASSAM FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. HK Sarma Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Choudhury, Page No.# 2/8 Standing Counsel, PWD Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 29.04.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. HK Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, PWD who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the annulment orders dated 14.07.2025, whereby the Letter of Acceptance which was issued in respect to 3(three) contractual works were annulled and the bid security amount so deposited was forfeited. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner in pursuance to a request for bids dated 21.08.2024, participated in respect to 5(five) contracts, which is at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The contents Page No.# 3/8 of the relevant contract work along with the other details as mentioned in the table of the request for bids dated 21.08.2024 are reproduced hereinunder: Sl.N o. Packa ge No. Name of the work Approx. Estimated Amount (Rupees in Lakh) Bid Securit y (Rupee s in Lakh) Tender Processi ng Fees (INR) Completio n Period (month) 1. CE/EAP /ARRBP /OCB/B ridge- 1/Cach ar/01 Constructio n of Bridge in Cachar district: 1). Br. On Road from Leburbond to Bastila Rinkiyason Basti 166.45 3.33 5000 18 2. CE/EAP /ARRBP /OCB/B ridges- Constructio n of Bridges in Cachar district: 529.91 10.60 5000 24 Page No.# 4/8 3/Cach ar/02 i).Br.No.2/1 on Hazarigram to Dolugram via Kalapani ii). Br. On NH- 37 at Chiripool to Sribar Lakhipur Road via Borbil iii). Br. On Uttar Sonapur to Narayanbasti Road 3. CE/EAP /ARRBP /OCB/B ridges- 2/Cach ar/03 Constructio n of Bridges in Cachar district: i). Br. No.8/4 on Guabari to Lutherthal 290.32 5.81 5000 24 Page No.# 5/8 Road ii). Br. On S.K. Road to Kullicherra 4. CE/EAP /ARRBP /OCB/B ridge- 1/Cach ar/04 Constructio n of Bridge in Cachar district: i). Narayanbasti PMGSY Road to Railbasti (Eraling) 186.03 3.72 5000 18 6. CE/EAP /ARRBP /OCB/B ridge- 1/Cach ar/07 Constructio n of Bridge in Cachar district: i). Br. No.3/1 on Dalu (UBI) to North South 252.47 5.05 5000 12 Page No.# 6/8 Rampur 4. At the time of submission of the bids, the petitioner duly submitted the bid security as mentioned against each contractual works. The record further reveals that on 29.03.2025, the petitioner was issued the Letter of Acceptance in respect to the aforementioned 5 (five) contractual works. The petitioner duly accepted the Letter of Acceptance dated 29.03.2025, thereby furnishing the Performance Security as well as the revised program as was necessary in respect to contractual works at Serial.Nos.1 and 2 of the request for bids dated 21.08.2024. However, in respect to the Contractual Works at Serial Nos.3, 4, and 6, the petitioner neither furnished the Performance Security nor submitted the updated construction methodology and the revised program as was required. On the other hand, on 23.04.2025, the petitioner submitted that in respect to these three works, the period for proceeding with the work be started w.e.f. September 2025. 5. The respondent authorities, instead of accepting the said request annulled the acceptance of the contract by issuing the respective communications dated 14.07.2025, which have been enclosed as Annexure XVI to the writ petition. It is also mentioned in the said communications dated 14.07.2025 that the bid security amounts which the petitioner had submitted were also forfeited. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the Page No.# 7/8 present writ petition. 6. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of Clause 50 of the Instruction to the Bidders, which relates to the Performance Security. Clause 50.1 and Clause 50.2, being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: “50.1 Within twenty-one (21) days of the receipt of the Letter of Acceptance from the Employer, the successful Bidder shall furnish the Performance Security in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract, subject to ITB 41.2 (b), using for that purpose the Performance Security and ESHS Performance Security Forms included in Section X, Contract Forms. The performance security of a Joint Venture shall be in the name of the Joint Venture specifying the names of all members. 50.2 Failure of the successful Bidder to submit the above-mentioned Performance Security or to sign the Contract Agreement shall constitute sufficient grounds for the annulment of the award and forfeiture of the Bid Security. In that event the Employer may award the Contract to the Bidder offering the next Most Advantageous Bid.” 7. From a perusal of the above-quoted clauses, it would be seen that within 21 days of the receipt of the Letter of Acceptance from the employer, it is the requirement for the successful bidders to submit the Performance Security. Further to that, it is mandated that if the Performance Security is not submitted, it shall be a sufficient ground for annulment of the award and forfeiture of the bid security. Page No.# 8/8 8. Taking into account the said terms of the contract which the petitioner duly agreed to at the time of submission of the petitioner’s bids in respect to the 3(three) contracts in question, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned communications dated 14.07.2025, whereby the Letter of Acceptance in respect to the 3(three) contracts were annulled and the bid security were forfeited. 9. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. However, in the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant