Page No.# 1/31 GAHC010056512026 2026:GAU-AS:8117 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1609/2026 UCN CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT R. K. PATH, ITACHALI,NAGAON - 782003, DISTRICT - NAGAON REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI PIYUSH KUMAR NAHATA, 43 YEARS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI -110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT) AND SPECIAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN NEW DLEHI- 110001 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT) AND SPECIAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE REGIONAL OFFICER MORTH RAJGARH ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 Page No.# 2/31 5:THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM P.W. (BUILDING AND NH) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 6:THE CHEIF ENGGINEER PWD (NH WORKS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 7:RANA CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SURAJ COMPLEX ULUBARI CHARIALI GUWAHATI- 781007 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) EMAIL- anaconstructionpvtltd@gmail.com PHONE NO.- 03613550395 8:MIDAS CONSTRUCTION ROYAL SILVER TOWER LACHIT NAGAR MAIN ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 78100 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate : Mr. D. P. Borah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG, Assam : Mr. H. Gupta, CGC : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate : Mr. R. M. Deka, Advocate : Mr. A. Roy, Advocate Page No.# 3/31 · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.06.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : NA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam as well as the Standing counsel of the PWD appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6; Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8. 2. The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 03.03.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer for the Director General (RD) & Special Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, (Zone North East) i.e. the Respondent No.3 as well as the consequential cancellation notice dated 09.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No.6. Page No.# 4/31 CONSPECTUS OF FACTS: 3. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (EAP Road) carries out various forms of works for construction of National Highways. Vide a Circular dated 23.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4, powers were delegated to the Chief Engineer - Regional Officer (CE-RO)/SE-RO/ELO at MoRT&H Regional Office. In terms with the said Circular, sanctioning of detailed estimates and the power to grant technical sanction, appraisal and approval to the estimate have been mentioned. How the evaluation of bids would be carried out is mentioned at Clause 8 of the said Circular dated 23.02.2018. In respect to works with sanctioned cost of civil works up to Rs. 5 crores, the State PWD have been delegated the power to evaluate the bids and finalize the tenders as per the Ministry's Guidelines. 4. In terms of Clause 8.2 of the said Circular, works with sanctioned cost of civil works more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores, it is mentioned that the opening and evaluation of the bids shall be carried out by the Evaluation Committee with the composition specified in the said Clause. Clause 8.2 of the said Circular being relevant is reproduced herein under: “8.2. Works with sanctioned cost of civil works more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. Page No.# 5/31 100 crores: Opening and evaluation of bids shall be done by the Evaluation Committee with the composition as mentioned in the following table: Table :2 Sr. No. Composition of the Committee Role 1 Chief Engineer (NH) of the concerned State PWD/equivalent or any other officer of equivalent or higher rank, nominated by the Principal Secretary/Secretary of State PWD/equivalent Chairman 2 Representative of State Finance Department not below the rank of Deputy Secretary Member 3 Officer nominated by the CE- RO/SE-RO of MoRTH Member 4 Superintending Engineer (concerned NH circle) of State PWD/equivalent Member 5 Executive Engineer (concerned NH circle) of the State PWD/equivalent Member Secretary” 5. From a perusal of the above Clause, it would show that amongst the various members who are to be present, it includes an Officer nominated by the CE-RO/SE-RO of MoRT&H. 6. Clause 9 of the said Circular dated 23.02.2018 refers to Page No.# 6/31 acceptance of the bid. Clause 9.2 being relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings is reproduced herein under: “9.2. Works with sanctioned cost of civil works of more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores: The Authority to accept bids having tender premium within 5% of sanctioned cost of works (cost put to tender), based on recommendations of the Evaluation Committee mentioned in Table 2, and for carrying out all the necessary contractual formalities leading up to signing of the contract agreement in a time bound manner, shall be not below the rank of Principal Secretary/Secretary of the State PWD/equivalent or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer nominated by the Principal Secretary/Secretary State PWD/equivalent.” 7. Clause 10 stipulates who would be authorized to issue the Letter Of Acceptance/Award (LOA). Clause 10.2 refers to the sanctioned cost of civil works of more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores and the said clause being relevant for the purpose of the present determination is reproduced herein under: “10.2. Works with sanctioned cost of civil works of more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores: The LOA shall be issued by the appropriate Authority not below the rank of Superintending Engineer (concerned NH circle). Thereafter, the Contract Agreement shall be signed by the appropriate Authority in the State PWD, but not below the rank of Superintending Engineer within the prescribed period mentioned in the RFP.” 8. It is further relevant to take note of that the Ministry of Road Page No.# 7/31 Transport and Highways (EAP Zone) have issued Guidelines for evaluation of Bids vide a communication dated 16.01.2017. The contents of the said communication being relevant for the purpose of the present dispute is reproduced herein under: “Government of India Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (EAP Zone) Transport Bhawan, 1 Parliament Street New Delhi – 110001 No. RW/NH-37010/4/2010/PIC-EAP (Printing) Dated: 16.01.2017 To, 1. The Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of all States/UTs Public Works Department dealing with National Highways, other Centrally Sponsored Schemes & State Schemes. 2. The Engineers-in-Chief and Chief Engineers of all States/UTs Public Works Department dealing with National Highways, other Centrally Sponsored Schemes & State Schemes. 3. The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), G-5&6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075. 4. The Managing Director, National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., 3rd floor, PTI Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 Page No.# 8/31 001 Subject: Guidelines for Evaluation of bids -Reg. Sir, As per existing procedure for Evaluation of Technical BIDs, the discretion of calling clarifications from the Bidder rests with the Tender Evaluation Committee. This sometimes leads to declaration of the BIDs as non-responsive without calling sufficient clarifications from the Bidder. Therefore, to ensure the transparency in the tendering process, the Competent Authority has decided that the tender Evaluation Committee shall evaluate the bids keeping in view the following: (1) The Tender/Bid, once opened by the Authority/Technical Evaluation Committee through e-tendering portal, should not undergo subsequent material changes. However, the Technical Evaluation Committee may ask Bidders for clarifications of their tenders/bids in order to assist in the examination, evaluation and comparison of bids. The variations/clarifications which do not affect the basic character/profile of the offer may be sought from the Bidders and acceptable, under the following conditions: (a) Non-affixation of stamp/common seal on the Power of Attorney. (b) Extension of validity or Bid Security. (c) Minor deficiency in Power of Attorney and Bank Guarantee. (d) Minor deficiency in certificates submitted against claims for technical/financial capacity. Technical deficiency like specification of bridges not mentioned in the certificate, share of JV partners not mentioned, Page No.# 9/31 category of the work claimed by the bidder etc. and Financial deficiency like Turn-Over against Consultancy services not mentioned etc. (e) Any request for clarification(s) and all clarification(s) in response thereto shall be in writing. 2. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority. 3. The content of this letter shall be brought to the notice of all concerned for compliance. Yours faithfully, (Khushal Chand) Superintending Engineer (EAP) For Director General (RD) & Special Secretary” 9. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court deal with the specific facts which led to the filing of the instant petition. 10. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Respondent No.6 dated 17.11.2025 thereby inviting bids from eligible bidders from experienced firms/organizations of appropriate class for operation and maintenance works. The work in question pertains to Performance Based Maintenance Contract (PBMC) estimate to NH- Page No.# 10/31 127D (from km 19.000 to km 48.600) (Length = 30.60 km) and 127A (from km 29.200 to km 38.000) (Length = 8.80 km) under Rangia NH Division in the State of Assam. (Total Length = 39.400) (Job No.PBMC/127A/AS/2025-26/286). Amongst the various clauses which have been mentioned in the said Notice Inviting Tender, Clause 3 has relevance for the purpose of the present determination. The said Clause 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.11.2025 is reproduced herein under: “3. Bid through any other mode shall not be entertained. However, originals of Bid Security, cost of bid (e-generated hard copy of challan of Bharatkosh), Power of Attorney and Joint Bidding Agreement etc. shall be submitted physically by the Bidder on or before Bid Due date i.e. 09-12-2025 at 14:00 hours IST). Please note that the [Ministry/Authority/ Executing Agency] reserves the right to accept or reject all or any of the BIDs without assigning any reason whatsoever.” 11. From a perusal of the above quoted clause, it would show that the Ministry/Authority/Executing Agency reserved the right to accept or reject all or any of the BIDs without assigning any reason whatsoever. 12. In pursuance to the said Notice Inviting Tender, 7 (seven) bidders participated by submitting their online bids. The technical evaluation was carried out on 18.12.2025 by the Committee which Page No.# 11/31 was constituted in pursuance to the Circular dated 23.02.2018 and included the Regional Officer of MoRT&H. In the said technical evaluation which was carried out, 5 bidders out of 7 bidders were found to be technically non-responsive whereas the Petitioner and one M/S Sanjay Kumar Singh were found to be technically responsive. The Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the instant proceedings were also found to be technically non-responsive. It is very pertinent to take note of the reasons so assigned as to why the Respondent No.7 was technically non-responsive. The reasons were: (a) The Annual Turnover certified by the Chartered Accountant did not match with the details furnished in Annexure-III. (b) Labour License submitted by the Respondent No.7 was not valid on the bid due date. 13. It appears from the records that pursuant to the said technical evaluation being carried out on 18.12.2025, the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 both submitted respective representations to various authorities including the Regional Officer, MoRT&H. The representation of the Respondent No.7 is enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.7. The Page No.# 12/31 said representation is dated 06.01.2026 wherein it was categorically mentioned as to why the Respondent No.7 was technically responsive. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner as well as M/S Sanjay Kumar Singh were technically non-responsive on various reasons. By the said representation, a request was made by the Respondent No.7 that the technical evaluation be re- evaluated by taking into account the contents of the said representation. 14. The record reveals that on 07.01.2026, a communication was sent by the Executive Engineer for the Regional Officer, Guwahati to the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works) thereby forwarding the representations submitted by the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and place the same before the Bid Evaluation Committee for appropriate consideration. In the said communication, it was specifically mentioned that till the disposal of the representations, the financial bids for the project may not be opened. 15. In view of the said communication dated 07.01.2026, the Bid Evaluation Committee comprising of the various officials in terms of Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018 considered the representations submitted by the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 on 09.01.2026. Upon due consideration by the said Bid Evaluation Page No.# 13/31 Committee, it was found that the discrepancies which were mentioned qua the Petitioner were minor deficiencies and the Bid Evaluation Committee accordingly decided that certain clarifications be sought from the Petitioner. At the same time, insofar as the Respondent No.7 was concerned, it was opined in the Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee dated 09.01.2026 that the Respondent No.7 had submitted an invalid Labour License, and as such, the question for asking for clarification did not arise. 16. Pursuant to the said decision so taken that clarifications be sought only from the Petitioner in respect to the minor deficiencies, such clarifications were provided by the Petitioner and in pursuance thereto, the same was again considered by the Bid Evaluation Committee in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21.01.2026. The Bid Evaluation Committee, which again comprised of all the Members of the Committee in terms with Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018, opined in the Minutes of the Meeting that the Petitioner as well as M/S Sanjay Kumar Singh were technically responsive whereas the remaining 5 bidders including the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 were technically non- responsive. 17. From the records and more particularly from the affidavit-in- Page No.# 14/31 opposition filed by the Respondent No.6 through the Superintendent Engineer, it appears that there was a telephonic discussion between the Chairman of the Bid Evaluation Committee with the Regional Officer, MoRT&H Guwahati on the finalization of the date for opening of the financial bids. It was specifically mentioned at Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.6 that 03.02.2026 was the date fixed for opening of the financial bid in consultation with the RO, MoRT&H Guwahati. In addition to that, the Respondent No.6 had also enclosed the communication dated 02.02.2026 which was sent to other Members of the Bid Evaluation Committee which included the Regional Officer MoRT&H as Annexure-III to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by Respondent No.6. The said affidavit-in- opposition of the Respondent No.6 however, does not state that the Regional Member of MoRT&H was present in the financial bid evaluation which was carried out on 03.02.2026 though Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the PWD submitted that without the presence of the MoRT&H official, it was not possible for opening of the financial bid itself. 18. The records further reveal that upon opening of the financial bid on 03.02.2026, it was found that the Petitioner had quoted Page No.# 15/31 4.77% above the contract value whereas M/S Sanjay Kumar Singh quoted 4.98% above the contract value. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner who had no knowledge about these aspects pertaining to the internal workings between the PWD and the MoRT&H was awaiting that the Petitioner would be granted the contract being the lowest eligible bidder. To the surprise of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could come to learn that the Respondent No.6 vide a cancellation notice dated 09.03.2026 has cancelled the entire tender process. On enquiry, the Petitioner could come to learn that the said cancellation notice was on account of the order dated 03.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4. It is under such circumstances the present petition has been filed. 19. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 18.03.2026, while issuing notice passed an interim order that the Respondent Authorities shall not initiate any fresh tender process for the same contract work till the next returnable date. The records further reveal that when the writ petition was again listed before this Court on 20.04.2026, this Court observed that the interim order can only be extended, if the Petitioner submits an Indemnity Bond before the Registry of this Court by 24.04.2026 to the effect that in the circumstance, there is any escalation of the value of the work on account of the interim order passed by this Page No.# 16/31 Court and the Petitioner is unsuccessful in the present proceeding, the Petitioner has to undertake to indemnify the Respondent Authorities. 20. In pursuance thereto, the Petitioner submitted an Indemnity Bond before the Registry of this Court giving an undertaking and agreeing to indemnify and keep the Respondents indemnified against any escalation in the value of the contract work arising due to the continuation of the interim order, if so occurs subject to the writ petition being dismissed. The interim order thereupon had been extended from time to time. 21. In the meantime, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 21.04.2026 providing the reasons as to why the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 was issued by the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner has also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 reiterating its stand in the writ petition and further denying to the various statements and averments. 22. The Respondent No.6 as already stated hereinabove, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 28.04.2026 whereby the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 had not been Page No.# 17/31 questioned. However, certain clarifications were given in respect to the said order dated 03.03.2026 stating inter alia that the Regional Officer of MoRT&H was duly informed that the financial bid would be opened on 03.02.2026. It was also mentioned that the technical bids which were evaluated in presence of the members in terms with Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018 and in all these technical bid evaluations which were being carried out, the Regional Officer of MoRT&H was duly present. 23. The Respondent No.7 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition whereby the Respondent No.7 had tried to substantiate its stand that the Petitioner was technically non-responsive, whereas the Respondent No.7 was technically responsive. Various documents have been enclosed to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 7 which includes the representation so submitted by the Respondent No. 7 on 06.01.2026. 24. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court now take note of the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: Page No.# 18/31 25. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the technical evaluations were carried out by the Committee which has been entrusted in terms with the Circular dated 23.02.2018. The learned Senior counsel submitted that when this Committee had been delegated by the Ministry to make the technical evaluations and they having carried out the technical evaluation whereby the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were held to be technically non-responsive, a further action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take any action for cancellation on account that the technical evaluation was not carried out as the Ministry’s Guidelines was not permissible. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the records, it appears that the Regional Officer, MoRT&H was not present in the financial bid opening on 03.02.2026. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 could have at best directed the re-evaluation of the financial bid but not cancelled the entire tender process. He therefore submitted that cancelling the tender process in the entirety would result in price escalation which would not be in public interest. 26. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the authority delegated to the Committee in terms with the Circular dated 23.02.2018 was based upon the fact that the evaluation would be carried out in Page No.# 19/31 terms with the extant Guidelines of the MoRT&H. He therefore submitted that the extant Guidelines of the MoRT&H, which in the instant case would be the Guidelines dated 16.01.2017, have not been complied with and as such, the delegatee cannot be said to be exercising the power vested upon it by the Circular dated 23.02.2018 in accordance with law. 27. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC further submitted that the reasons given in the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 are reasonable and rational. The learned CGC further submitted that even assuming for argument sake but not admitting that the reasons are not to the liking of this Court, but as this Court is exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, which being circumscribed as per the settled principles of law, this Court may not like to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.03.2026. 28. The learned CGC submitted that the order dated 03.03.2026 takes into consideration three aspects. First, the Regional Officer was not present in the financial bid opening on 03.02.2026, which is the requirement in terms of Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018. Secondly, the reasons for rejecting the bid of the Respondent No.7 on account of not having a Labour License was hyper-technical inasmuch as the Labour License would be only Page No.# 20/31 required at the time of execution of the work when the contract is being granted. Thirdly, in terms with Clause 1(d) of the Guidelines dated 16.01.2017, the deficiency for which the Respondent No.7 was rejected would come within the ambit of minor deficiency. 29. In addition to that, the learned CGC submitted that the contract value in question have been categorically mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender. However, if there are lesser competition, the contract price would only increase. The learned CGC submitted that on account of the repetition of five out of seven bidders on account of minor deficiencies, the contract price would increase which would not be in the public interest. The learned CGC stressed upon the aspect that more the participation, it would result in more competition in bidding. The learned CGC therefore submitted that these considerations which forms the basis of the order dated 03.03.2026 cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary or irrational for this Court to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 30. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 submitted that the instant writ petition ought not to be entertained at the behest of the Petitioner taking into account that it is an internal matter between the Page No.# 21/31 MoRT&H and the PWD. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that what is the conceivable right of the Petitioner in the present case, inasmuch as, there is no Letter of Acceptance or work order issued to the Petitioner for creation of a right. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that, it is true that in certain circumstances, if the tender in question is cancelled in an arbitrary, unreasonable manner coupled with malice in fact and law, it is permissible for this Court to exercise the powers of judicial review. However, in the instant case where reasons have been assigned, this is not a case wherein this Court may like to exercise the powers of judicial review. 31. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the Standing Counsel of the PWD submitted that the PWD authorities do not like to contest the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 and this aspect would be seen from the fact that the Respondent No.6 has issued the cancellation notice dated 09.03.2026. He however, submitted that the order dated 03.03.2026 is not in good taste taking into account that the representative of the Regional Office, MoRT&H, were duly informed about the opening of the financial bids on 03.02.2026 and in fact, it was with his consultation, the date was fixed. Therefore, the contents of the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 wherein it is Page No.# 22/31 mentioned that the Regional Officer of MoRT&H was not informed and the said Regional Officer on 04.02.2026 informed the Ministry about the same, do not appear to be correct. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 32. The facts narrated hereinabove as well as the submissions taken note of, would show that the dispute in the instant proceedings centers around the three points for determination: (i) Whether the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had the authority to nullify the entire tender process vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2026? (ii) Whether the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have exercised powers in a reasonable and rational manner? (iii) Whether any rights accrued upon the Petitioner, on the basis of being adjudged as the lowest bidder, to question the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 and the cancellation notice dated 09.03.2026 in the present facts? FIRST POINT FOR DETERMINATION Page No.# 23/31 33. The materials on record clearly show that the Respondent State PWD was delegated the power vide the Circular dated 23.02.2018 by MoRT&H. On the basis of such delegation, MoRT&H empowered the Respondent PWD Authorities to initiate the tender process and the Bid Evaluation Committee in terms with Clause 8.2 of the Circular was required to evaluate the Bids. 34. The question arises in the present facts as to whether such delegation would amount to abdication of the powers of MoRT&H. It is settled law that delegation of power does not amount to abdication of the powers by the Delegator. The Delegator always retains control over its delegatee. It is also the settled law that if there is an abdication of the powers by way of a delegation by the Delegator, such delegation would be bad. 35. The above principles applies on the basis of the legal maxim “Qui facit per alium facit per se” meaning that he who acts through another acts himself. 36. This Court finds it relevant to observe that the power exercised by the State PWD as well as the Bid Evaluation Committee would for all purpose be considered as the power exercised by MoRT&H itself and therefore unless reasons exists, it Page No.# 24/31 would be unreasonable for MoRT&H to override its own decision, taken through its delegatees, i.e., State PWD and the Bid Evaluation Committee. 37. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that MoRT&H always and would continue to retain the power over the subject tender in spite of the fact that the State PWD Authorities have been delegated the power to initiate the tender process and the Bid Evaluation Committee to evaluate the Bids. This aspect is also apparent from Clause 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender which is quoted in the previous segments of the present judgment as it is clearly stipulated that apart from others MoRT&H also retains the jurisdiction to cancel a tender process. 38. The validity of nullifying MoRT&H’s own decision taken through its delegatees is a separate aspect which is discussed in the second point for determination. SECOND POINT FOR DETERMINATION 39. The Circular dated 23.02.2018 and more particularly Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018 stipulates that the constituted Committee were required to evaluate the tenders in respect to civil works more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores. The composition Page No.# 25/31 of the Committee was categorically mentioned in Clause 8.2 which included the Officer nominated by the CE-RO/SE-RO of MoRT&H. 40. A perusal of the tender documents would show that the bids in question were required to be submitted in two parts. First is the Technical Bid and the second is the Price Bid. The Bid Evaluation Committee, so constituted in terms of Clause 8.2 of the Circular dated 23.02.2018 was required to evaluate both the Technical Bid as well as the Financial Bid. Admittedly, on 03.02.2026, the Financial Bid was evaluated by the Committee in absence of the Regional Officer of MoRT&H. Under such circumstances, the financial bid evaluation was in conflict with the Circular dated 23.02.2018 as well as the delegation made to the said Bid Evaluation Committee. 41. Let this Court now deal with the evaluation of the Technical Bid. The impugned order dated 03.03.2026 categorizes reasons for holding that the technical bid evaluation was not proper. First, the Guidelines dated 16.01.2017 have not been adhered to by the Bid Evaluation Committee; and Secondly, the financial bid which was allowed to be evaluated are 4.77% and 4.98% above the estimated price. This aspect Page No.# 26/31 touches on the question of lack of competitiveness which resulted on account of the Technical Bid Evaluation. 42. The fundamental question, therefore, arises as to whether the Bid Evaluation Committee while carrying out the technical bid evaluation on 18.12.2025, 09.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 have gone against the Guidelines dated 16.01.2017. 43. Clause-(1)(d) of the Guidelines dated 16.01.2017 stipulated what would constitute minor deficiencies. Certificates submitted against claims for technical/financial capacity, technical deficiency like specification of bridges not mentioned in the certificate, share of JV partners not mentioned, category of work claimed by the bidder, etc. and financial deficiency like turnover against consultancy services not mentioned, etc. were considered to come within the ambit of deficiencies, which did not affect the basic character/profile of the offer and as such, variations/clarifications were permissible. 44. In the instant case, a perusal of the minutes of the Technical Evaluation Committee dated 18.12.2025, 09.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 would show that while there were certain deficiencies in the bid of the Petitioner, clarifications were sought from the Page No.# 27/31 Petitioner. However, insofar as the Respondent No.7 was concerned, the deficiency which pertained to the discrepancy between the CA Certificate as well as Annexure-III, no clarification were sought for. The discrepancy as regards the CA Certificate with Annexure- III to the tender documents have been construed by MoRT&H in the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 to be minor deficiency which could have been resolved by way of clarifications. However, no such opportunity was given to the Respondent No.7. Further to that, the Respondent No.3 in the impugned order mentioned that the bid of the Respondent No. 7 could not have been held non-responsive on the ground of invalid Labour License inasmuch as Labour License requirement as structured in Table 7.1, (“With First Bill”) were to be placed at the execution stage statutory compliance and not at the bid stage qualification requirement. It was also mentioned in the impugned order that the requirement of a Labour License being a statutory compliance relating to engagement of contract labour during execution of the work, it did not pertain to technical capacity or financial qualification of a bidder and would not alter the substantive character or profile of the offer. 45. It is very pertinent at this stage to observe that irrespective of the fact that the State PWD have been authorized to initiate the Page No.# 28/31 tender and a Bid Evaluation Committee was constituted in terms of the Circular dated 23.02.2018 to evaluate the Bids but MoRT&H, for all purposes retained the authority over the tender in question. This Court at this stage finds it very relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 where the Supreme Court observed that unless and until such understanding of the contract appears to be malafide or perverse, the Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should defer its decision to the decision of the authorities concerned. 46. This Court also finds it relevant to observe that the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational. Rather, the said order dated 03.03.2026 provides reasons which this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot interfere. It is settled law that this Court do not sit as an Appellate Authority rather only decides on the legality of the decision making process. 47. Taking into account above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 holding that the technical evaluation so carried out by the Bid Evaluation Committee Page No.# 29/31 was in conflict with the Guidelines of MoRT&H dated 16.01.2017 calls for no interference. 48. Consequently, the second point for determination is decided by holding that the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 is reasonable and rational. THIRD POINT FOR DETERMINATION 49. Let this Court now take up the third question as to whether any right had accrued upon the Petitioner on the basis that the Petitioner had been evaluated as the lowest bidder. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court have quoted Clause 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender wherein, it is categorically stipulated that the Ministry/Authority/Executive Agency reserved the right to accept or reject all or any of the BIDs without assigning any reason whatsoever. In the instant case, it is seen that the reasons so assigned in the order dated 03.03.2026 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that merely because of the fact that the Petitioner was the lowest bidder, the fact did not create any right, in favour of the Petitioner. 50. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merits in Page No.# 30/31 the instant writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 51. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 52. Before parting with the records, this Court further takes note of that the Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 17.11.2025 and the Technical Bids were opened on 18.12.2025. Thereupon, the financial bids were open on 03.02.2026. It was only on 09.03.2026, after one month, the cancellation notice was issued. The pleas raised in the present writ petition cannot be said to be a case which is completely misconceived and the writ petition was filed for certain illegal and oblique motive. This Court for the reasons assigned above did not consider the present writ petition to be a fit case for interfering with the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 and Cancellation Notice dated 09.03.2026. 53. There was no delay in the adjudication of the present lis on account of the Petitioner. 54. In fact, after the notice was issued in the present proceedings and an interim order was passed on 18.03.2026, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the Respondent No.6 has filed their affidavits only on 21.04.2026 and 28.04.2026 respectively. Page No.# 31/31 55. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the present proceedings have been delayed at the instance of the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is observed that the Respondent Authorities shall not penalize the Petitioner on account of the Indemnity Bond so submitted by the Petitioner before this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Satyam Sharma Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.06.16 18:12:44 +05'30'