Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010123822025 2026:GAU-AS:8442 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3234/2025 M/S SUNSWRANG ASSOCIATES AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PASCHIM BORAGAON, GARCHUK, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781035, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER MRS. NILIMA BORO. 2: MRS NILIMA BORO W/O- LATE DHARANI BORO MANAGER M/S SUNSWRANG ASSOCIATES RESIDENT OF LATAKATA BASISTHA GUWAHATI ASSAM 781029 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRIBAL AFFAIRS (P) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL AFFAIRS (P) ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT COPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781005 REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4:MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781005. Page No.# 2/16 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781005. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781005. 7:ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781005. 8:NOBLE GODSON BRAHMA C/O- ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MS. P. KASHYAP,M K BORAH,MR. I CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WPT AND BC, Linked Case : WP(C)/732/2025 M/S SUNSWRANG ASSOCIATES AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PASCHIM BORAGAON GARCHUK GUWAHATI PIN- 781035 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER MRS. NILIMA BORO. Page No.# 3/16 2: MRS NILIMA BORO W/O- LATE DHARANI BORO MANAGER M/S SUNSWRANG ASSOCIATES RESIDENT OF LATAKATA BASISTHA GUWAHATI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRIBAL AFFAIRS (P) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL AFFAIRS (P) ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005 6:ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI Page No.# 4/16 GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005. 7:AMIT BRAHMA C/O- ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005. 8:NOBLE GODSON BRAHMA C/O- ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI CHARIALI GANESHGURI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005. ------------ B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : None Appears Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. R Dhar, Standing Counsel Assam Tribal Affairs (P) Department Mr. K Kalita Standing Counsel, Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12.06.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Page No.# 5/16 Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : NA Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) None appears on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. R Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assam Tribal Affairs (P) Department, Assam and Mr. K Kalita, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. 2. Normally, taking note of the settled principles of law, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, that too, when the petitioners are not represented does not interfere with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) as well as the Work Order so issued. But the facts in the instant case are so egregious in nature, this Court is compelled to interfere in public interest. 3. The brief facts of the instant case are that a Press Notice Inviting Tender was issued in the newspaper the Assam Tribune on 27.12.2024. In the said Press Notice Inviting Tender issued by the Page No.# 6/16 Managing Director of the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd., (for short, APTDCL), Bids for 4 (four) works were invited. Out of the 4 (four) works, 3(three) works, the value of the contracts were Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.53,73,700/- and Rs.50,00,000/- each. In respect to these 3(three) contract works, the last date of bid submission was fixed on 20.01.2025, and the date and time of bid opening is also on 20.01.2025. However, for the purpose of the work which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, i.e. Construction of Eklavya Model Residential School, (EMRS) Bedlangmari Dist: Kokrajhar under Article 275(I) of the Constitution of India, (for Balance Work), the contract value was Rs.6,78,21,916/-. The date fixed for submission of the Bid and opening of the Bid was 10.01.2025. No reasons were assigned as to why a truncated period was stipulated for the Bid submission for a work which was 12 times the size of the other three works. It was also contrary to Rule 24 A(iii) of the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2020’) which mandates 21 clear days from the date of invitation of the bid. 4. The Press Notice Inviting Tender also stipulated the earnest money requirement for general contractors as 2% of the tender value, and for SC/ST and OBC contractors at 1% of the tender value. Under such circumstances, the earnest money for general contractors would be Rs.13,56,438.32p, whereas for the Reserved Category i.e. SC, ST Page No.# 7/16 and OBC would be Rs.6,78,219.16p. 5. The e-tender, thereupon, was published on 30.12.2024, and on the same day, the e-tender could be downloaded. It is surprising to note that the online bid submission date was fixed on 31.12.2024, and the bid end date was fixed on 10.01.2024. This Court may have considered the said aspect to have been a case of printing error, but when the same error appears to be in respect to the e-tendering publishing, as well as e-tendering downloading, it is difficult for this Court to arrive at the said conclusion of an inadvertent error. Rather, it gives an impression that such misleading dates were inserted with a clear intention that only some bidders can participate. Clause 5 of the Notice Inviting Tender being relevant is reproduced hereinunder— “Schedule for e-tender Activity Start Date Start Time End Date End Time Remark 1. e-tendering publishing 30/12/2024 11.00 Hrs 10/01/2024 15.00Hr 2. e-tendering downloading 30/12/2024 11.00 Hr 10/01/2024 15.00 Hr 3. Pre-bid meeting 05/01/2025 11.00 Hr 4. Online bid submission 13/12/2024 11.00 Hr 10/01/2024 15.00 Hr 5. Technical bid opening 10/01/2024 15.30 Hrs. Page No.# 8/16 6. Price bid opening Will be informed later 6. This Court while referring to the Press Notice Inviting Tender dealt with the earnest money deposit stipulations. However, a perusal of the e-tender would shock any reasonable person with prudence and having the slightest idea of the constitutional norms. In the e-tender, the earnest money stipulated was Rs.3,39,110/- for general contractors and Rs.6,78,219/- for SC, ST and OBC contractors. A reading of the said clause shows that the respondent authorities rather than providing benefits to the reserved categories adopted a reverse constitutional mechanism of deposit of earnest money twice which was sought for from the general contractors. It is an admitted fact that no corrigendum was issued at any point of time subsequently to correct those mistakes. 7. Clause 2 of the Notice Inviting Tender further stipulated the qualification required. The said clause being relevant is reproduced herein under: “2. To qualify for the award of the contract, the bidder should fulfill the following qualification requirements in addition to the other qualification requirements given in the tender documents: Item No. Qualification Requirement Page No.# 9/16 A Annual Financial Turnover in any of the last three financial years should be at least Rs.814.70 Lakhs. B Contractor/ Bidder should have completed similar works as prime Contractor during last 5 years upto 31/03/2024 in which applications are invited should be either of the following: I) Three similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of the tender value II) Two similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 50% of the tender value III) One similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the tender value. C Total Liquid Assets and Credit Facility should be at least Rs.135.65 Lakhs. 8. The petitioners herein who were interested in submitting the bid tried to submit its bid, as per the Notice Inviting Tender, but could not submit the earnest money as the tender portal did not accept 1% of the tender value of Rs.6,78,219/- or even 2% of the tender value of Rs.13,56,438/-. Be that as it may, it is seen from the affidavit which had been filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, that 4(four) bidders could submit the bid, and it was mentioned that in the Assam Tender Portal the exact amount of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was Page No.# 10/16 Rs.3,39,110/- and the petitioners ought to have only deposited Rs.3,39,110/-. The question arises as to whether without a corrigendum issued clearly specifying what should be the EMD was it fair and reasonable on the part of the respondents to even anticipate that the bidder should pay only Rs.3,39,110/-. At the cost of reiteration, it is seen that from the Press Notice Inviting Tender, the e- tender and the statement made by the respondents in their affidavit that there are three EMD for SC, ST & OBC Bidders vis-à-vis the General Contractors: For General Contractors For SC/ST & OBC Contractors (Press Notice Inviting Tender) Rs.13,56,438.32 p Rs.6,78,219.16p e-tender Rs.3,19,110/- Rs.6,78,219.16p As per affidavit Rs.3,19,110/- 9. The records further reveal that out of the four bidders, two bidders were held to be Technically qualified i.e. the respondent Nos.7 and 8. The technical evaluation sheet enclosed shows that out of the four bidders, one did not submit the EMD. 10. The respondents did not enclose the financial evaluation sheet. Page No.# 11/16 However, it shocks this Court to take note of from the affidavit of the respondents that though the contract value was for Rs.6,78,21,916/-, the respondent No.7 had quoted Rs.11,75,56,408/- and the respondent No.8 quoted Rs.11,51,10,577/-. The said quotes are surprising, inasmuch as the contract value was Rs.6,78,21,916/-. Almost double, the contract value was quoted. But the most astonishing fact is that upon negotiations carried out, with the L1 bidder i.e. the respondent No.8 had reduced his quote by almost 5 Crores. On 30.01.2025, the work order was issued to the respondent No.8 at an amount of Rs.6,78,21,916/-, and on the same day, the notice to proceed with the work was also issued. 11. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the WP(C)No.732/2025 was filed on 10.02.2025 and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, noticing these egregious facts, while issuing notice, stayed the tender process and no work order was directed to be issued without the leave of the Court. The interim order thereupon had been extended from time to time. In the meantime, in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, whereby the Work Order as well as the Notice to Proceed were placed on record, the subsequent writ petition being WP(C)No.3234/2025 was filed on 05.06.2025. Page No.# 12/16 12. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents and had also perused the materials on record. The afore-stated facts as would appear from the materials on record would show that the tender of the work in question for reasons best known has been proceeded with by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, in the manner not envisaged under the law. A contract of an amount of more than 6.78 Crores, the period for submission of the bid have been put at 11 days, whereas by the same Press Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.12.2024, three contracts of Rs.50 lacs and odd, the bid submission period was 21 days. 13. This Court finds no justification in the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 as to why there was a deviation from Rule 24A (iii) of the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020, The said Rule 24A(iii) being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “24. Methods of Procurement and Procedures thereof:- Every procuring entity shall follow the procedure in respect of the chosen methods of procurement as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act for a particular procurement. A procuring entity, may choose different methods of procurement specified in sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act, if deemed more advantageous and appropriate after recording the specific reasons and circumstances in writing for so choosing in exception to the preferred method i.e. Open Competitive Bidding method in terms of sub-section (4) of section 29 of the Act, such specific reasons and circumstances shall be recorded in the case file and clearly noted in the procurement register indicating the name and designation of the procurement entity making the Page No.# 13/16 decision. Procedures to be followed for various methods of procurement are as follows:- (A) Procedure for Open Competitive Bidding :- (i)……………. (ii)………….. (iii) The date for opening of bids shall be fixed after at least twenty one clear days counted from the date of publication of the latest advertisement inviting bids." 14. This Court further takes note of the Notice Inviting Tender itself. It shocks and surprises this Court that a contrary term was inserted in the e- tender to what had been mentioned in the Press Notice Inviting Tender inasmuch as, in the Press Notice Inviting Tender, the EMD was 2% for General Contractors and 1% for SC/ST and OBC of the contract value, whereas at Clause 1(f) of the e-tender, the earnest money/bid security to be deposited was mentioned as Rs.3,39,110/- for general contractors and Rs.6,78,219.16p for SC/ST and OBC contractors. Again, in the Appendix to the Instruction to the Bidders most insignificantly, it was mentioned that the amount of earnest money shall be Rs.6,78,219/- for general contractors and an amount of earnest money for SC, ST, and OBC shall be Rs.3,39,110/-. Again, at Clause 5 of the e-tender, which has been already quoted hereinabove, the end date was wrongly mentioned. In fact, the end date which was mentioned therein could not have been a date at all, taking into account that the Notice Inviting Tender was only issued on Page No.# 14/16 30.12.2024. There was no corrigendum issued for correction of all these. 15. The petitioners tried to upload its bid document, but the earnest money deposit was not accepted and rightly so as the EMD which the petitioners tried to deposit was as per the e-tender and the Press Notice Inviting Tender. There was no information to all concerned that such mistakes were there in the Press Notice Inviting Tender or the e- tender. 16. This Court is shocked to see that though in the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, the respondents have duly admitted that the respondent No.8 had quoted Rs.11,51,10,557/-, but the evaluation of the financial bid have not been enclosed. The shocking part is that a negotiation was carried out whereby the respondent No.8 had reduced his bid from Rs.11,51,10,557.20/- to Rs.6,78,21,916/-. 17. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of the Circular No.4/3/07 of the Government of India Central Vigilance Commission, which stipulates as to when negotiations are not permissible. It is stipulated that there should be no post-tender negotiations with L1 except in certain exceptional circumstances, such Page No.# 15/16 as, situations which would include procurement of proprietary items, items with limited resources of supply, and items where there is a suspicion of curtail formation. Nothing of such sort was carried out. 18. Taking into account that this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution, it is also the bounden obligation of this Court to see that such illegalities are not allowed to be perpetuated, more particularly, when the lis is before the Court. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that this case is a fit case for exercise of the jurisdiction for setting aside that entire tender process as well as all consequential action taken on the basis of the said tender, i.e. issuance of Work Order as well as the Notice to proceed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The e-NIT dated 23.12.2024 bearing No.PTDC/ENGG/2018-19/101, being against public interest and illegal, is set aside and quashed. (ii). The letter of acceptance dated 30.01.2025, issued in favour of the respondent No.8 is set aside and quashed. (iii). The Notice to Proceed with the Work dated 30.01.2025 issued to the Respondent No.8 is set aside and quashed. Page No.# 16/16 (iv). The respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed with a fresh tender in respect to the said work by following the settled principles of law as well as the provisions of the Assam Public Procurement Act 2017, read with the Rules framed thereinunder. (v). The performance security so submitted by the Respondent No.8 of an amount of Rs.13,56,438/-, be returned to the Respondent No.8 upon an application is filed. (vi). There shall be no order(s) as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant