Facts of the Case

  • Tender Issuance: The Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Government of Assam, issued a public tender under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF-XXVII) for the construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Buildings, which included electrification, water supply, and sanitary installations in the Nalbari district.
  • Financial Scope: The estimated cost allocated for the public infrastructure project stood at ₹33,71,000/- with a strict contractual completion deadline of 180 days.
  • Procurement Process: The department implemented a competitive two-bid procurement system comprising independent technical and financial evaluation stages.
  • Bidding Outcome: Registered contractors Diganta Borah, Hemanta Kumar Borah, and Bobita Borah participated and emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidders by quoting rates that were more than 15% below the prevailing Detailed Schedule Rate (DSR).
  • Departmental Compliance: In alignment with Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender criteria, the L-1 bidders provided rate analyses and structural documentation to justify their financial quotes. The Bid Process Management Committee ordered physical verifications, which were executed by a departmental engineer who certified the feasibility of the bids.
  • Tender Award: Following the verification, the Committee recommended awarding the project to the L-1 bidders, contingent upon the submission of a 12% Additional Performance Guarantee and a timely execution undertaking. Formal work orders were issued on January 6, 2024.
  • Litigation Trigger: Balen Roy Medhi, an unsuccessful bidder who submitted a substantially higher quote, challenged the allotment by filing a series of writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. A Single Judge subsequently set aside the work orders, prompting the private contractors and the State of Assam to file structural Writ Appeals.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the Single Judge erred by overstepping the established boundaries of judicial review under Article 226 by performing an appellate evaluation of an expert technical committee's decision-making process in a public tender.
  • Whether minor procedural discrepancies, such as non-geo-tagged site photographs or the formatting of third-party material supplier quotes (GSTIN validation), are sufficient grounds to invalidate an active public work contract.
  • Whether it is legally justifiable to halt or redirect public infrastructure works at the behest of an unsuccessful higher bidder after significant execution progress has already been achieved.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellants - Contractors & State of Assam)

  • Adherence to Tender Protocols: The appellants argued that they fully complied with Clause 2.A.(g) of the bid parameters by presenting comprehensive rate justifications and supporting evidentiary portfolios along with their low-rate bids.
  • Expert Valuation Finality: The evaluation and validation of the low financial quotes were meticulously processed by the Bid Process Management Committee, a body consisting of domain-specific technical experts whose decisions should not be lightly substituted by a court.
  • Irrationality of Supplier Objections: The legal team asserted that the technical focus remained on the main bidder’s legal eligibility. The status of a material supplier’s internal GSTIN registry or the plain-paper formatting of their quotes did not impact the primary contractor's compliance, as the supplier's rate and material availability were the only relevant criteria.
  • Prejudicial Contractual Disruption: The appellants underscored that substantial infrastructural milestones had been reached on-site. Halting active operations based on generalized allegations from a defeated, higher-quoting bidder directly undermined public economic interests and halted project momentum.
  • Disregard of Supreme Court Precedents: The state and the contractors maintained that the Single Judge's intervention fundamentally conflicted with landmark Apex Court rulings governing judicial restraint in commercial tenders, specifically Afcon Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. A.R.M. Dev Prabha.

Respondent’s Arguments (Private Opponent - Balen Roy Medhi)

  • Allegations of State Collusion: The respondent contended that the acceptance of unfeasibly low rates was a direct byproduct of systemic institutional collusion and administrative bias favoring the select group of contractors.
  • Fraudulent Verification Evidence: The respondent presented evidence indicating that the field inspection photographs submitted by the departmental engineer to validate multiple distinct project sites were completely identical and lacked mandated geo-tagging verifications.
  • Documentary Deficiencies: Attention was drawn to structural flaws in the bid filings, demonstrating that one of the appellant's sub-contracted quotes carried an invalid GSTIN that did not match the entity, and that clarification letters from suppliers lacked official corporate letterheads or legal seals.
  • Contestation of Work Progress: The respondent disputed the state's factual assertions regarding the percentage of work completed and payments disbursed, claiming that substantial phases remained incomplete and that the rapid progress claims lacked valid corroboration inside official departmental measurement books.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reversal of the Single Judge Order: The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury set aside the Single Judge's judgment, declaring the judicial cancellation of the work orders wholly unjustified.
  • Limitation of Judicial Intervention: The Court re-emphasized that judicial review must target the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merit of the decision itself. Courts must exercise extreme restraint unless the administrative actions are demonstrably plagued by deep-seated mala fides, perversity, or irrationality.
  • Validation of Expert Agency Discretion: The Division Bench observed that the technical viability of the low rates had been verified via a multi-layered process by the Bid Processing Management Committee. The Bench ruled that an unsuccessful higher bidder’s systemic complaints should not easily override expert assessments once construction has initiated.
  • Protection of Public Interest: The Court expressed concern over the judicial halt of public infrastructure works. Recognizing the extended timelines authorized by the department, the Division Bench directed the appellants to complete the entire contractual construction framework within the officially extended deadline of June 30, 2026.

Important Clarification

  • Supplier vs. Bidder Compliance Matrix: The judgment establishes that in public procurement, the statutory tax compliance (such as valid GSTIN data) of a third-party raw material supplier cannot be weaponized to disqualify the primary bidder, provided the primary bidder holds valid tax registrations and the supplier's material rates are commercially executable.
  • Status of Family Businesses: The Court clarified that multiple bidders belonging to the same family participating or winning separate packages within a public tender does not automatically imply collusion or corporate malpractice, and cannot serve as a baseline for judicial disqualification.

Section Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Constitutional provision governing the scope and limitations of judicial review by High Courts concerning administrative actions and public tender allocations.
  • Clause 2.A.(g) of the Tender Bid Document: The specific regulatory terms mandating detailed justification, rate analysis, and structural proof for bids quoted beyond 15% below the Detailed Schedule Rate (DSR).

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783060787_327compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.