GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 24:
1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned D.S.G.I. for Union of India, representing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. R.K. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no.7. None appears on call for respondent no.8.
2) By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2563/2025, has assailed the judgment and order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the said writ petition.
3) In connection with a notice inviting tender (NIT for short), dated 21.01.2025, issued by the authorities of the respondent no. 2, i.e. the Brahmaputra Board under two bid system for the work of "Protection of Majuli Island from flood and erosion of river Brahmaputra (Phase-V)", the appellant had submitted its bid. However, upon opening the technical bid, the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the requirement of Clause 2.(i) of Annexure-20A.13.2. Accordingly, the aggrieved appellant had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned action on their part in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant submitted pursuant to the NIT bearing memo no. BB/MD/T-158/2024-25/5 dated 21.01.2025, issued by the respondent authorities in respect of the hereinbefore referred contract work; and for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the technical bid of the appellants and to open its financial bid; and for other reliefs.
4) The said writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in this intra-court appeal. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court had examined the relevant clause 2.a.(i) of Annexure-20A.13.2 of the bid document and considering the requirement of submitting bidder's performance in two works completed within the last three years from the last date of submission of the bids and accordingly, it was held that the work completion certificate dated 30.11.2022 submitted by the appellant, the same does not have any performance report on specific particulars/ parameters and when compared with another performance report submitted by the petitioner, it was opined that the completion certificate dated 30.11.2022, only states that that "the work has been completed in all respect as per specification and provisions and to the satisfaction of the Deptt." Thus, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 and Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, it was held that when the author of the terms and conditions of tender have come to a finding that there is no performance certificate, this Court, not being a Court of appeal, and not having expertise in such matters, cannot substitute its own views with that of experts in the field. It was further observed that from a perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 08.05.2025, it shows that the bid of another bidder named therein had its bid rejected on the same ground as that of the appellant.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xw612f0pBdYZr4IAS5GDMyfoC5hofPBw6AVb9qheMJkz&caseno=WA/161/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010106952025&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
