Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010024522026 2026:GAU-AS:6120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/711/2026 MS ASSAM ELECTRIC STORE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM , HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT R.N.B. ROAD, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION KOKRAJHAR, DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BIMAL KUMAR DUGAR, AGE-55 YRS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT , P.W.D, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. ELECT. ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 4:BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERP.W.D. ELECT. ASSAMCHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 5:SHREE GAUTAM CONSTRUCTION CO LTD Page No.# 2/9 14 BILASPARAP.O. P.S. BILASPARADISTRICT DHUBRIASSAM 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DUBEY, MS N B KAYASTHA,MS. A B KAYASTHA,MR. A N I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 05.05.2026 Heard Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. It is pertinent to mention that service of notice in respect of the respondent No. 5 stands complete in terms of the orders of this Court dated 18.03.2026 as well as Lawazima Court dated 13.03.2026. However, none appeared for the respondent No. 5, on call. 3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent authorities rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner in connection with the NIT dated 16.12.2025 floated for certain electrical works at Golaghat Medical College & Hospital, Golaghat. 4. The brief facts are that the petitioner, claiming to be a Class-I contractor engaged in electrical works and registered with the Assam Public Works Department as well as APDCL, participated in the tender floated by respondent No. 3 vide NIT dated 16.12.2025. The works offered were: (i) Construction of a 33 KV dedicated feeder from Tetelitol 132/33 KV Grid to Golaghat Medical College & Hospital; (ii) Construction of one 33 KV dedicated feeder bay at 132 GSS AEGCL, Page No.# 3/9 Golaghat; and (iii) Load security payment to APDCL. 5. The value of the works was Rs. 14,50,55,035/- and the time for completion was 12 months. The last date for submission of the technical bid was 31.12.2025. The petitioner submitted its bid within time. Along with the petitioner, four other bidders also participated, including respondent No. 5. The Bid Evaluation Committee, in its meeting dated 21.01.2026, rejected the technical bids of the petitioner and two others and accepted the bid of respondent No. 5 as the sole technically qualified bidder. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner did not initially submit documents relating to the joint venture, such documents were subsequently submitted and were available with the authorities at the time of evaluation. It is contended that the authorities ought to have considered the same and determined the petitioner’s share in the joint venture work. 7. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, submits that the tender conditions prohibit submission of documents after the bid deadline. The petitioner submitted additional JV documents on 09.01.2026, which was beyond the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the financial bid was opened on 22.01.2026, respondent No. 5 was declared L-1, and the work order was issued on 12.02.2026. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 9. The issue for determination is whether the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is arbitrary and, if so, whether any interference is warranted. 10. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to the relevant terms of the tender. The schedule prescribed in the NIT dated 16.12.2025 clearly stipulates that the last date Page No.# 4/9 and time for submission of bids was 31.12.2025 at 2:00 PM, after which no modification was permissible. 11. Clause 22 of the ITB provides that bids may be modified or withdrawn only before the deadline. Clause 4.4 prohibits bids from joint ventures, and Clause 4.5(A) mandates that the bidder must demonstrate completion of similar work in its own name. 12. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the minutes of the technical bid evaluation committee meeting held on 21.01.2026, which reads as under - “MINUTES OF TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 21/01/2026 AT 1.00 PM IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF THE ADDL CHIEF ENGINEER. PWD (ELECT) ASSAM. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3 Name of the work-1 Construction of 33 K V dedicated feeder from Telelito) 132/33 KV grid to Golaghat Medical College and Hospital Bogorijeng and Golaghat 2 Construction of 1 no of 33 KV dedicated feeder bay at 132 GSS AEGCL Golaghat for supply of power to Golaghat medical college and hospital, assam 3 Load security payment to APDCL Tender ID 2025 PWBND 49464-1 Techinal bids were opened on 31-12-2025 in the office chamber of the AddI CE. PWD (Eectrl), Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati-3 - Total 4 four nos of technical bids were received i.e 1/4 Shree Gautam construction co. Itd director Gautam Kumar Jain, 14 Bilasipara p.o and PS Bilasipara, Dist Dhubri Assam Pin 783348, Phone no. 6900175080. 2/4 M/S Assam electric store, prop-Sri Bimal Kr Dugar, rob road, Kokrajhar. P.O and PS-Kokrajhar Dist Kokrajhar Assam Police No. 9435026563. 3/4 M/S UK Enterprise Prop Udhab Ttalukdar Fatik Das Bhawan Dr RP Road Guwahati-6, P. O and PS Dispur, Kamrup Metro assam phone -6002441952. 4/4 M/S Assam Supply Syndicate Chatribari Road, Krishna Nagar. P.O. and PS Paltan Bazar. Kamrup metro, assam, phone no 9864027502. After completion of the evaluation process of technical bids for the above mentioned work the evaluation report is placed before the bid evaluation committee on 21/01/2026 for consideration of merit of bids After scrutinizing the technical evaluation report, the findings of the same is as follows: 1/4 M.S Shree Gautam Construction co ltd: fulfill all evaluation criteria and found technically responsive. 2/4- M/S. Assam Electric Store. The bidder has submitted the Joint Venture single similar (Electrical) Work executed under APDCL The share of Joint Venture party could not be ascertained from the available submitted document, in the mean time, the contractor had willingly submitted Joint Venture Page No.# 5/9 Agreement between Assam Electrical Store and Purbanchal Enterprise with share 90% & 10% respectively but this. document is not a part of the contract agreement with A'DCL and thus could not be accepted for Evaluation On consideration of the same, the committee decides the bidder is technically non responsive. 3/4-MS UK Enterprise The bidder has submitted the Joint Venture single similar (Electrical) work, executed under APDCL The shares of Joint Venture party could not be ascertained from the available document. Hence same could not be accepted for Evaluation Consideration of the same, the committee decides the bidder is technically non responsive. 4/4- M/S Assam Supply Syndicate The bidder has submitted the single similar (Electrical)work which could not be accepted as per Clause no, 4.5A(a) of ITS) On consideration of the same, the committee the bidder is technically non responsive. After thread bare discussion by the B.E.C. it is decided to accept the single technically responsive bid of 1/4 M/s Shree Gautarn Construction Co. Ltd, as per Clause no 20(1) of Assam Public Procurement R4 other 3 (Three) Nos. of Bidders are found Technically Non Responsive It may also be stated that the wide publicity of the bid was given to encourage competition standard bidding document was adopted eco friendly specification was given and sufficient time provided for preparing & submission of the bid committee also discuss the nature of the work which is related to the construction of Golaghat College & Hospital, where civil construction work is in advance stage and the above work is totally dependent on the 33 decicated line Sine from APDCL the project site in order to install, test and commission of the project in stipulated time Considering the above facts the BEC decided to open the financial bid of the single technically responsive bid of M/S Shree Gautam construction co. ltd.. Chairman BEC Assam Addl Chief Engineer PWD Elect Assam Chandmari Guwahati Deputy Secy to the govt of PW (Hand E) deppt Dispur, Guwahati-06 Member Secretary Supertending Engineer PWD Assam Chandmari, Guwahati” It is apparent from the above extracted minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee meeting that the petitioner’s bid was rejected as the share of the joint venture could not be ascertained from the documents submitted. The subsequently submitted JV agreement was not part of the original contractual record and hence, Page No.# 6/9 could not be considered. It is also evident that another bidder was similarly rejected for identical deficiencies, indicating uniform application of the tender conditions. 13. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 reiterates that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility as the JV share was not ascertainable from the original contract documents, and the subsequently submitted JV agreement could not be relied upon. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition read as under – “5. That, as regards to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the instant Writ Petition, the deponent begs to state that the Petitioner ARIS the eligibility criteria. The duly constituted Technical Committee, upon scrutiny of the documents submitted found that the Petitioner was technically non-responsive for failure to satisfactorily establish compliance with "similar work" eligibility condition prescribed under the NIT 6. That, as regards to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the instant Writ Petition, the deponent begs to deny the averment made in the said paragraph. The Petitioner relied upon a single similar work executed under a Joint Venture arrangement. However, the share percentage of the Petitioner in the said Joint Venture was not ascertainable from the contract document executed with Assam Power Distribution Company Limited. In absence of such ascertainable proof, eligibility could not be established. 7 That, as regards to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the instant Writ Petition, the deponent begs to state that the Petitioner subsequently, produced a Joint Venture Agreement separately indicating a 90% and 10% share arrangement later on. However, the said document did not form part of the original contract agreement executed with the employer and was not reflected in the contractual records of APDCL. Accordingly, the same could not be replied upon for the purpose of technical evaluation. 8. That, as regards to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the instant Writ Petition, the deponent begs to state that the tender conditions required documentary proof of similar work executed by the bidder. The Petitioner in this regard, failed to furnish a contract document clearly specifying its executed share in the Joint Venture work. Hence, the bid was rightly declared technically non- responsive.” 14. The law governing judicial review in tender matters is well settled. In Air India Ltd. -Vs- Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, it has been held that the State is free to prescribe its own tender Page No.# 7/9 conditions and the Court does not sit in appeal over such decisions. Interference is confined to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of fairness, and even where a defect is found, intervention must be guided by overriding public interest. In Caretel Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81, it has been emphasized that tender terms are contractual in nature and judicial review is limited to examining the decision- making process, and that excessive judicial interference may hamper commercial efficiency. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, it has been held that interference is permissible only when the decision is so arbitrary that no reasonable authority could have arrived at such a decision. In Tata Motors Ltd -Vs-. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Ors., reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reiterated that Courts must exercise great restraint in contractual matters, give “fair play in the joints” to the tendering authority, and avoid interference unless a clear case of arbitrariness is made out. 15. From the aforesaid decisions, the following principles clearly emerge: (i) the terms of a tender lie in the contractual domain and must be strictly complied with by all bidders; (ii) the scope of judicial review is confined to examining the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself; (iii) interference is permissible only where the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias; and (iv) strict adherence to prescribed timelines forms an integral facet of fairness, transparency, and equality in the tender process, and any deviation therefrom would disturb the level playing field. Even where a legal flaw is alleged, the Court must exercise restraint and be guided by overriding public interest, particularly in matters involving technical evaluation and ongoing contracts. Page No.# 8/9 16. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to observe that challenges to tender processes under Article 226 have increasingly become routine, often at the instance of unsuccessful bidders. While the jurisdiction of this Court remains wide and is meant to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness, such jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked as a matter of course so as to convert the writ court into an appellate forum over commercial or technical decisions of the tendering authority. Interference in tender matters must, therefore, remain confined to well-defined parameters of judicial review, lest routine challenges impede public projects, delay execution, and adversely impact public interest. 17. In the present case, the chronology of events assumes determinative significance. The last date and time for submission of bids was 31.12.2025 at 2:00 PM, beyond which no modification or supplementation was permissible. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not submit the requisite joint venture documents indicating its share in the execution of similar work within the stipulated period. The said documents were admittedly furnished only on 09.01.2026, i.e., well beyond the prescribed timeline. 18. In tender jurisprudence, adherence to timelines is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement ensuring fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity. In other words, time stipulations in tender matters are sacrosanct, admitting of no deviation unless expressly permitted by the tender conditions themselves. Permitting a bidder to supplement deficiencies after the deadline would amount to altering the level playing field and would be contrary to the express terms of the tender. The tendering authority was, therefore, justified in restricting its evaluation to documents submitted within the prescribed time. 19. Significantly, the same standard was uniformly applied to other bidders as well, whose bids were rejected on similar grounds. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is a direct consequence of non-compliance with the tender timeline and cannot be Page No.# 9/9 termed arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. 20. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision-making process of the tendering authority. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 21. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Kumar Deka Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar Deka Date: 2026.05.06 17:46:28 +05'30'