Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010065162026 2026:GAU-AS:6062 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1893/2026 RAMESH SAIKIA S/O- LATE CHAKIRAM SAIKIA, R/O- MILAN NAGAR, WARD NO. 9, P.O. AND P.S. TITABOR, DIST. JORHAT. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TOWN AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MARIANI CO-DISTRICT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 5:MARIANI MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MARIANI DIST. JORHAT PIN- 785634. 6:THE CHAIRPERSON MARIANI MUNICIPAL BOARD Page No.# 2/6 MARIANI DIST. JORHAT PIN- 785634. 7:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MARIANI MUNICIPAL BOARD MARIANI DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785634. 8:UTPAL GOGOI S/O- BHABESH GOGOI R/O- CHENGELI PATHAR P.O. JIADHAL CHARIALI P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI PIN- 787057. 9:LAKHYAJIT GOGOI S/O- NAREN GOGOI R/O- BAKAL GOAN P.O. KHUBALIA P.S. AND DIST DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. M. Biswas, Standing Counsel · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 04.05.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/6 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M. Biswas, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Mariani Municipal Board and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the tender dated 27.02.2026 issued by the Executive Officer, Mariani Municipal Board for the work of renovation/upgradation of Zone-II, Hengul under the Mariani Municipal Board. The petitioner has further sought a declaration that the technical bids submitted by the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were non-responsive. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the decision of the Tender Inviting Authority to award the contract in favour of the respondent No. 8. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the Request for Bids (RFB) was issued through the e-procurement system for renovation/upgradation of Zone-II, Hengul under the Mariani Municipal Board. The Request for Bids contained various terms and conditions regarding eligibility. One condition was that the bidder’s average annual turnover must be at least Rs. 5 crores during the last three financial years (ending on 31st March 2025). The Page No.# 4/6 petitioner herein admittedly does not have the said qualification. However, the petitioner participated in the said tender process, and his bid was rejected on the ground that he did not have the eligibility of having an average annual turnover of at least Rs. 5 crores during the last three financial years ending on 31.03.2025. Thereupon, when the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging the very tender document as well as the consequential steps taken for settling the contract. 4. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401, wherein the Supreme Court decided the question as to whether the bidder after knowing right from the beginning about the fact that the bidder did not have the eligibility, and after submission of the bid, challenge the tender document or the terms thereof. The Supreme Court dealt with this aspect at paragraph 44 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein under: “44. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 are patently illegal, more particularly, in the absence of any challenge to the same and also on the ground that once the Page No.# 5/6 original writ petitioner participated having knowledge of the aforesaid clauses in ITB, thereafter it was not open for the original writ petitioner to challenge the same. The original writ petitioner was knowing right from the very beginning with respect to the confidentiality clause contained in Clause 28 and that grounds on which the bids of unsuccessful bidders are not selected shall be communicated only after a final decision to award the contract is communicated under Clause 42. If the original writ petitioner was aggrieved either it would not have participated and/or ought to have challenged such clauses before participating in the tender process. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 as patently illegal cannot sustain and the same also deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 5. From a perusal of the above-quoted paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (supra), it is clear that an intending bidder, if aggrieved by any clause in the tender, the bidder has to either challenge the clause and not participate, or challenge the clause and thereafter participate. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner did not challenge the clause requiring that the bidder’s average annual turnover be at least Rs. 5 crores in the last three financial years. The petitioner, however, participated in the said tender process and, upon rejection of his technical bid, has now challenged the very tender document. On this count alone, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Page No.# 6/6 7. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, and more particularly paragraphs 8 and 27, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed that an ineligible bidder cannot be permitted to challenge the acceptance of the bid of an eligible bidder. 8. Considering the above, as the petitioner did not had the requisite qualification, this is not a fit case for being entertained in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.05.06 07:05:27 +05'30'