Ms Rana Construction And Engineers PVT LTD vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that in WP(C) Nos. 5163, 5164, and 5165 of 2025, the actions of the PWD authorities in holding the private respondent technically responsive, despite non-disclosure, were arbitrary and violated the mandate of fair treatment and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the submission regarding the private respondent quoting a lower bid was misconceived, as a technically non-responsive bidder's financial bid has no value, and the difference in bids was minimal. The court reasoned that deviation from express terms of the contract, especially those forming the basis of equality amongst bidders, is impermissible. Consequently, the decisions of the Technical Evaluation Committee and Bid Evaluation Committee in these three petitions were set aside and quashed, with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action. In WP(C) No. 5969 of 2025, the Court found merit in the PWD's action of rejecting the petitioner's bid for violating Clause 4.7 of the ITB by not disclosing existing commitments, deeming the rejection justified and the initiation of a fresh tender process appropriate. Therefore, this petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Gauhati High Court heard four writ petitions concerning tender processes initiated by the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Assam. Three petitions (WP(C) Nos. 5163, 5164, and 5165 of 2025) involved a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated June 21, 2025, for various maintenance works on National Highways. The petitioners alleged that the authorities flouted tender terms to accommodate a private respondent. The fourth petition (WP(C) No. 5969 of 2025) concerned a different NIT dated June 24, 2025, where the petitioner's bid was rejected. The court noted a contrary stand taken by the PWD in the latter case compared to the former, despite similar issues regarding bid responsiveness and disclosure of existing commitments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Technical Evaluation Committee and Bid Evaluation Committee acted arbitrarily and violated Article 14 of the Constitution by holding the private respondent technically responsive in WP(C) Nos. 5163, 5164, and 5165 of 2025, despite alleged non-disclosure of information and deviation from tender terms? The petitioners argued that the respondents flouted express terms of the NIT to accommodate the private respondent, violating the principle of equality amongst bidders. The revenue contended that the private respondent quoted a lower bid and that interfering would not be in public interest. 2. Whether the PWD authorities were justified in rejecting the bid of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5969 of 2025 for non-disclosure of existing commitments, specifically the contract for construction of Girls Hostel (G+2) at Janata College, Kabuganj, thereby initiating a fresh tender process? The petitioner argued for a different yardstick being applied compared to the other cases, while the revenue argued that the petitioner violated Clause 4.7 of the ITB.