Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6287/2025 on 24 March, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/23
GAHC010245192025
2026:GAU-AS:4552
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
[THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH]
W.P.[C]. No. 6287/2025
M/s Travel Service represented by its
proprietor, Sri Mukul Medhi, 3-A Suriya
Enclave, Ajanta Path, Bye Lane No. 2,
Survey Beltola, Guwahati, Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin-781028.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, represented by
the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Roads, Transport
and Highways, New Delhi-110001.
2. National Highways & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd
(NHIDCL), Regional Office, Guwahati,
Second Floor, Agni Shanti Business
Park, GNB Road, Opposite AGP Office,
Ambari, Guwahati-781001.
Page No. 2/23
3. Government E-Marketplace
represented by its Chief Executive
Officer, Third Floor Tower II, Jeevan
Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New
Delhi-110001.
4. Kamakhya Travels, Panchmile, Tezpur,
District - Sonitpur, Assam, Pin-
784025.
...................Respondents
BEFoRE HoN'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHoUDHURY Advocates :
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
For the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. C. Baruah, Standing Counsel,
NHIDCL
For the Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Y. Kothari, Advocate
For the Respondent no. 4 : Mr. B.D. Das, Senior Advocate,
: Ms. R. Deka, Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Page No. 3/23
Operative part of the judgment ? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced ? : Yes
JUDGMENT & oRDER
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the writ petitioner seeking cancellation of the bid of the respondent no. 4, who has been declared as the lowest bidder [L-1] in a tender process initiated by a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 23.08.2025 by the respondent National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited [NHIDCL]. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for a direction to award the contract-work under reference to the petitioner by declaring it as the L-1 bidder.
2. The relevant and necessary facts leading to the institution of the writ petition are required to be exposited at first. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 23.08.2025, the NHIDCL invited bids from companies, firms, agencies, individuals having past experience in providing vehicles to Government departments / public sector undertakings, etc. under a two-bid system comprising of a technical bid and a financial bid. In the NIT, the subject of the tender [hereinafter also referred as 'the Contract-Work', at places, for easy reference] was mentioned as under:
'Providing & supplying of 32 nos. vehicles [SUV such as Innova Hy- Cross ZX / Toyota Fortuner] Innova Crysta, Scorpio, Bolero or equivalent] on monthly basis for Regional Office, PMUs and its Site Offices under RO - Guwahati, NHIDCL in the State of Assam.'
3. It was mentioned that the vehicles, thirty two in nos., would be in need for each Project Management Unit [PMU], Site Offices and Regional Office, Page No. 4/23 Guwahati for the NHIDCL, a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways [MoRT&H], Government of India [GoI], initially for a term of two years from the date of contract award, which might be extended based on performance. The specifications of the thirty two vehicles required for the Contract-Work was also mentioned in the NIT.
4. It was mentioned that the technical bid and financial bid of the bidders would be opened in the presence of authorized representatives. The time schedule for the tender process was mentioned in detail in the NIT. In Clause 1.3 of the Letter of Invitation [LoI], it was mentioned that the proposals were invited through Government e-Market Place [GeM] [on-line bid submission] for assignment. Clause 1.4 of the LoI provided that financial proposals would be opened only for the firms found to be technically responsive. The selection of the assignment would be done through Least Cost System i.e. the lowest quoted bidder would be selected. Clause 2.1 and Clause 2.2 of the LoI had outlined the documents required to be submitted in support of the technical bid.
5. It was mentioned in Clause 4 of the NIT that none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives or any of the contractor / vendor / agencies assigned work / contract in NHIDCL would be considered for bidding for hiring of vehicles. A certificate in this regard should be furnished by the bidder along with technical bid.
6. Responding to the NIT, a total of thirteen nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, submitted their bids on-line. After the expiry of on-line bid submission time on the scheduled date, the technical bids of the participant bidders were opened in the Government e-Market Place [GeM] portal. Upon opening of the technical bids, the Bid Evaluation Committee uploaded the results of technical bid scrutiny in the GeM portal in two categories i.e. qualified and disqualified.Page No. 5/23
7. It is the case of the petitioner that a list of technically qualified bidders was published in the GeM portal and when the petitioner visited the GeM portal on 22.10.2025, he found that out of thirteen participant bidders, technical bids of only two bidders were placed in the qualified category and the technical bids of the remaining eleven bidders were declared disqualified. The petitioner was one of the two bidders who was placed in the qualified category whereas the name of the respondent no. 4 was found among eleven disqualified bidders.
8. The petitioner's further case is that on 30.10.2025, the financial bids were opened. To the surprise of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 whose technical bid was earlier in the disqualified category, was declared to be the lowest bidder [L-1] and the petitioner was shown as the L-2 bidder.
Aggrieved thereby and terming such action as arbitrary, non-transparent and opposed to the principles of fairness and transparency required to be followed in a public procurement process, the petitioner has approached this Court by the writ petition seeking the reliefs, mentioned above.
9. I have heard Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Mr. Y. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
10. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that when a list of technically qualified bidders was duly published on 22.10.2025 there can be no occasion to add two more names in the list of technically qualified bidders at a subsequent date. When the list of technically qualified bidders was published on 22.10.2025, the name of the respondent no. 4 was not enlisted there because the technical bid of the respondent no. 4 was placed in the disqualified category i.e. non-responsive. Once the Page No. 6/23 technical bid of the respondent no. 4 was disqualified, the tendering authority should not have opened its financial bid for consideration, much less for acceptance, and such action is illegal, arbitrary and is not permissible in law. The evaluation process of the financial bids ought to have been made limited to the two bidders who were declared technically qualified on 22.10.2025. Clause 2.1 of the LoI listed the documents which were to be uploaded along with the technical bid. The bidders were required to upload a notarized undertaking in a format prescribed by the NIT/Bid Document. As the undertaking was an essential document and since the respondent no. 4 did not upload it at the time of on-line submission of the bid, such defect being incurable, could not have been rectified subsequently and the respondent NHIDCL authorities were not permitted to shift the disqualified technical bid of the respondent no. 4 to the qualified category subsequently. In the NIT/Tender Document, there was no mention that after opening of the technical bids, the disqualified bidders would be allowed time to make representation as regards non-responsiveness of their bids. Mr. Bhattacharjee has, thus, contended that for the afore-stated reasons, the respondent no. 4 is to be declared disqualified and the petitioner is required to be declared as the L-1 bidder. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Company Limited and others, [2001] 2 SCC 451; Central Coalfields Limited and another vs. SLL-SML [Joint Venture Consortium] and others, [2016] 16 SCC 622; Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another, [2016] 16 SCC 818; and Prakash Ashphatings and Toll Highways [India] Limited vs. Mandeepa Enterprises and others, 2025 INSC 1108.
11. Mr. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL has, at first, extensively referred to the pleadings in counter affidavits filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to project the case of tendering authority, NHIDCL. He has submitted that in the Instruction to Bidders [ITB] part of the NIT, it was provided that Page No. 7/23 the Evaluation Committee of the NHIDCL reserved right to seek confirmation / clarification of any document from the bidder / issuing authority of such document during the process of evaluation. He has submitted that the entire tender process was conducted through the Government e-Marketplace [GeM]. On 22.10.2025, only the results after opening of the technical bids which were provisional in nature, were uploaded. At that time, the technical bids of only two bidders including the petitioner, were found responsive and the technical bids of the remaining eleven bidders were shown as non-responsive. In the GeM portal, there was a provision for a non-responsive bidder to represent within four days from the time of uploading of the opening results as regards the reason[s] shown for disqualification. The respondent no. 4 and one M/s Sonu Enterprises submitted their representations on-line in the window provided in the GeM portal within the stipulated time period provided for such purpose and on receipt of the representations, the technical bids of the said two bidders were scrutinized again. On scrutiny, their technical bids were found responsive and thereafter, the final results of evaluation of technical bids were uploaded on 30.10.2025 showing a total of four bidders as technically responsive, an aspect on which the petitioner has maintained silence. Thereafter on 30.10.2025 itself, the financial bids of those four qualified [responsive] bidders were opened and evaluated. After evaluation, the respondent no. 4 was declared as the lowest [L-1] bidder. On 22.10.2025, while uploading the opening results of technical bids which were provisional in nature, the reasons for which the technical bids of eleven bidders were placed in the disqualified category were also uploaded. When the respondent no. 4 represented that it had uploaded the notarized undertaking along with its technical bid, its technical bid was scrutinized again and it was found that the notarized undertaking was part of the respondent no. 4's technical bid submitted only. Similarly, on receipt of a representation from M/s Sonu Enterprises, its technical bid was checked again and on checking, its technical bid was also found compliant. As the omission was attributable to the tendering authority, due to oversight, it was corrected during the subsequent Page No. 8/23 stage of technical bid evaluation. The learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL has contended that there was no infirmity in the procedure followed in declaring the L-1 bidder and as the petitioner has not been able to make out a case, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 mentioning about the manner in which a tender process is conducted through the Government e-Marketplace [GeM] in deference to the Order dated 26.02.2026. In the affidavit, the technical bids of the respondent no. 4 and M/s Sonu Enterprises along with the documents, submitted on-line, have been annexed. He has submitted that the GeM operates solely as an electronic public procurement and facilitation portal, providing a neutral technological interface to enable interaction and transactions between buyers and sellers registered on its portal. The role of GeM is strictly limited to providing access to the platform and facilitating electronic process of procurement, without any participation or involvement of the GeM in the process underlying the contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. He has submitted that ordinarily, forty- eight hours time period is provided in the GeM portal for any bidder to respond after opening of the bids and it is an in-built mechanism. But such period can be altered at the instruction of the procuring authority. In the case in hand, the time period provided for any bidder to respond was made ninety- six hours [four days] at the instruction of the buyer/procuring authority. He has submitted that notarized undertaking was part of the technical bids uploaded by the respondent no. 4 and M/s Sonu Enterprise.
13. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted in similar lines as the learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL. He has further submitted that when after the provisional results as regards technical bids of the participant bidders were uploaded on 22.10.2025 the respondent no. 4 came to know that purportedly for not uploading the notarized Page No. 9/23 undertaking its technical bid was placed in the disqualified category. There was a provision in the GeM portal for any bidder who had been disqualified during the technical evaluation stage, to provide clarification as regards the disqualified bid within four days from the time of uploading of the technical bid opening results. In view of availability of such provision, the respondent no. 4 submitted its representation within the stipulated time period in the GeM portal on 24.10.2025 and also uploaded a certificate in abundant caution. The representation was considered and the respondent no. 4 learnt on 30.10.2025 that the respondent no. 4 had been removed from the disqualified category to the qualified category during the technical bid evaluation stage. Thereafter, the financial bids of the respondent no. 4 and another similarly situated bidder were considered along with the two other participant bidders, who were placed in the qualified category at the technical bid opening stage. Upon evaluation of the financial bids, the respondent no. 4 was declared as the lowest [L-1] bidder. Mr. Das has submitted that as there was no infirmity in the decision-making process and the respondent no. 4 had quoted lower bid value than the petitioner, the assail made in the writ petition has no substance.
14. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received due consideration. The materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings have been thoroughly considered.
15. To understand the procedure followed by the respondent NHIDCL authorities during evaluation process of the bids, it would be apposite to refer to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 wherein the procedure followed has been described.
15.1. In the affidavit filed on 21.11.2025, it has been averred that in Clause 5.1 of the Bid Document under the head - 'Evaluation of Technical Bid', a two-stage process in evaluation was contemplated. The Request for Proposal [RFP] Page No. 10/23 mentioned that the financial bids of only those bidders who were declared responsive in the technical bid evaluation stage by the Evaluation Committee, would be opened and evaluated. After evaluation of the technical bids, the Evaluation Committee uploaded the provisional results in the GeM portal in two categories - 'Qualified' and 'Disqualified' - giving due reasons for disqualification.
15.2. It was on 22.10.2025 the provisional technical bid evaluation results were uploaded in the GeM portal with the reasons of disqualification, apart from placing the bidders in two categories [qualified and disqualified]. In a Table, the reasons for disqualification of the technical bids of eleven participant bidders were mentioned. The reason cited for disqualifying the bid of the respondent no. 4 was shown as 'want of the certificate that none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives, etc. are participating in the bid'. The reasons for disqualification of the technical bid of M/s Sonu Enterprises were shown as 'want of the certificate that none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives, etc. are participating in the bid' and 'want of notarized contract with the owner in case vehicle is not owned by the bidder'.
15.3. There was a provision in the GeM portal for any disqualified bidder to represent within four days from the time of uploading the results to respond to any clarification or discrepancy for being disqualified brought out during technical bid evaluation stage. The facility in the GeM portal was for the bidder to know the reasons for disqualification of the bids by clicking the 'view' icon in the GeM portal and to submit a representation, if one chooses to do so. Such representation was to be submitted within four days from the time and date of uploading of the provisional technical bid evaluation results in the GeM portal. Post-uploading of the results of evaluation of the technical bids in GeM portal on 22.10.2025, two bidders, namely, [i] M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4] and [ii] M/s Sonu Enterprises represented Page No. 11/23 within ninety-six hours [four days] with their responses with regard to their disqualification during the technical bid evaluation stage.
15.4. On consideration of the representations submitted by the afore-stated two bidders, namely, [i] M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4] and [ii] M/s Sonu Enterprises [non-party], the Evaluation Committee decided to make a scrutiny of their technical bids and on scrutiny, found both the bidders to be qualified. Other than the said two bidders, no other bidder from the disqualified category represented during the stipulated time-frame of four days. Inadvertently, M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4] was placed in the disqualified category for non-submission of the certificate that none of the staff of the NHIDCL, their relatives, etc. was participating in the bidding process. But on re-scrutiny of the tender document of M/s Kamakya Travels [the respondent no. 4] by the Evaluation Committee in the GeM portal, it was found that the same had been uploaded in the form of a notarized undertaking by the bidder in GeM portal at the time of bid submission itself. Similarly after re-scrutiny, the technical bid of the bidder, M/s Sonu Enterprises had to be declared qualified.
15.5. Consequently, only four bidders, namely, [i] M/s Cozy Tour & Travels; [ii] M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4]; [iii] M/s Sonu Enterprises; and [iv] M/s Travel Services [the petitioner]; were declared qualified by the Evaluation Committee and the final results of technical bid evaluation were uploaded in the GeM portal on 30.10.2025.
15.6. On the basis of the final results of technical bid evaluation by the Evaluation Committee, the financial bids of all the four technically qualified bidders were opened on 30.10.2025 and among them, the respondent no. 4 was found to be lowest bidder [L-1]. It was prepared using the in-built process of GeM portal in ascertaining the L-1 bidder through GeM portal. The respondent no.
Page No. 12/234 quoted a bid value at Rs. 5,80,87,008/- to emerge as the lowest [L-1] bidder.
16. An assertion is made by the petitioner to the effect that the final results were uploaded in the GeM portal on 22.10.2025 after evaluation of the technical bids, declaring only two bidders including the petitioner, as qualified and the said fact has been admitted by the respondent NHIDCL authorities as well as by the respondent no. 4. What the respondent NHIDCL authorities have asserted is that the results of technical bid evaluation which were uploaded on 22.10.2025, were only provisional in nature and it was at an earlier stage of the technical bid evaluation stage after opening of the technical bids. At that stage, the reasons for disqualification against each disqualified bidder were also provided for fairness and transparency. Such reasons for disqualification could be viewed by the concerned bidder by clicking the 'view' icon on the same page of the GeM portal and the purpose was to enable a disqualified bidder to represent against disqualification within the stipulated time period of four days, if he had valid reason to agitate that his technical bid ought not have been placed in the disqualified category.
17. The petitioner itself has annexed a screenshot of the results of technical bid evaluation uploaded on 22.10.2025 at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. From Annexure-2, it can be seen that out of thirteen participant bidders, technical bids of only two bidders were placed in the qualified category and the bids of the remaining eleven bidders were placed in the disqualified category. In the extreme right column, there was a 'view' icon.
18. The facts which have emerged are that after opening of the technical bids on 22.10.2025, the results found after opening of the technical bids were uploaded in the GeM portal on 22.10.2025, with reasons of disqualification mentioned, as found out by the Evaluation Committee upon scrutiny of the technical bids and the documents in support, uploaded on-line. Each bidder Page No. 13/23 including a bidder from the disqualified category, could view the reasons by clicking the 'view' icon. The reasons for declaring the technical bids of the respondent no. 4 and M/s Sonu Enterprises as disqualified were made known to them. Post-uploading of the results after opening of the technical bids in the GeM portal, only two bidders, namely, M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4] and M/s Sonu Enterprises represented within four days with the responses with regard to their disqualification during the stage the evaluation of the technical bids was being undertaken.
19. The issues which have, therefore, arisen are, firstly, whether after uploading of the results of technical bid opening on 22.10.2025 in the manner above, it was open for the tendering authority, that is, the NHIDCL to scrutinize the technical bids again; and secondly, whether the participant bidders whose technical bids were placed in the disqualified category, could be permitted to submit any representation or any additional document qua the reasons shown for declaring their technical bids disqualified.
20. For the issue whether the results of technical bid opening uploaded on 22.10.2025 should be treated as final, a further look at the Tender Document is necessary. In Clause 5.1 of the LoI which was part of the tender document, the manner in which the technical bid proposals would be evaluated was mentioned. As per Clause 5.1, the proposals would be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee and to evaluate the proposals, a two-stage procedure would be adopted. In the first stage, the technical bids would be opened by the Evaluation Committee and the Evaluation Committee would examine on the four aspects specifically mentioned therein. In case the answer to any of the four aspects was found to be in negative, then the bid would be declared as non-responsive and shall not be evaluated further. After examining the proposal of the above grounds, the Evaluation Committee would shortlist the bidders on the basis of information provided in their technical bids Page No. 14/23 corresponding to their requirements set forth. All the conditions set forth in Clause 2.1 were to be met by the bidders at the stage of technical evaluation.
21. In the Tender Document, it was mentioned that the time allowed for technical qualifications during technical evaluation would be four days. From the above clauses, it is discernible that the details uploaded on 22.10.2025 were at an interim stage in the process of technical bid evaluation. The reasons mentioned to place the bidders in the qualified category and the disqualified category did not attain finality at that stage. As a time period of four days was kept for technical clarifications during technical evaluation and an window was kept open during that period to enable the participant bidders to submit representations, it cannot be said that the process of evaluation of the technical bids came to a culmination on 22.10.2025 itself. By uploading the reasons found after opening and evaluation of the technical bids in the GeM portal, the Evaluation Committee had disclosed the reasons it had found to disqualify the technical bids of some of the bidders and the reasons were for knowledge of the participant bidders. By keeping the window open for a period of four days thereafter, the Evaluation Committee facilitated the bidders to submit representations as against the reasons for disqualification. If by submitting representation a bidder placed in the disqualified category could show sufficient cause as to why he should not be placed in that category and should be placed in the qualified category in so far as the technical bid evaluation is concerned, the final view in the matter after consideration of the reasons shown in the representation could altogether be different. A tentative view taken during the early stage of the technical bid evaluation process cannot be deemed to be the final view in the matter and the final view would be dependent on the responses received from the bidders through representations and their consideration by the Evaluation Committee. Therefore, it was within the authority of the tendering authority to scrutinize the technical bids of the bidders after uploading of the results it uploaded upon opening of the technical bids.
Page No. 15/2322. When the two disqualified bidders submitted their representations showing reasons as to why their technical bids should be placed in the qualified category, the Evaluation Committee made scrutiny of the technical bids and the documents submitted in support of the technical bids. In so far as the respondent no. 4 is concerned, the respondent no. 4 had asserted that it had complied with the condition of uploading the notarized undertaking with the technical bid. It was for such reason, the respondent NHIDCL authorities stated to have made the scrutiny of the technical bid of the respondent no. 4 again.
23. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent NHIDCL authorities had taken a stand to the effect that on rechecking of the submitted documents by the Evaluation Committee in the GeM portal it was found that the certificate in the form of notarized undertaking was uploaded by the respondent no. 4 in the GeM portal at the time of bid submission itself. As the notarized undertaking was uploaded at the time of bid submission by the respondent no. 4 and it was the sole reason for placing the respondent no. 4 in disqualified category after opening of the technical bids on 22.10.2025, due to inadvertence, the respondent no. 4 was subsequently placed in the qualified category.
24. Similarly, the other bidder, M/s Sonu Enterprises who also represented during the permitted period of four days after 22.10.2025, was also placed in the qualified category after scrutiny. M/s Sonu Enterprises has not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the present proceeding and nothing has been pleaded against the said bidder in the writ petition. Consequently, the respondents also did not traverse on the aspect as to why M/s Sonu Enterprises was brought into the qualified category after placing it in the disqualified category, at first, after opening of the technical bids on Page No. 16/23 22.10.2025. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to dilate further on this subject-matter due to want of sufficient materials.
25. On bringing the said two bidders in the qualified category, the total number of bidders placed in the qualified category at the end of evaluation process of the technical bids of all the thirteen participant bidders became four. After completion of the process of technical bid evaluation, the final results were uploaded on 30.10.2025. In the writ petition, the petitioner is found to have maintained silence as regards uploading of the final results of technical bid evaluation on 30.10.2025 while challenging the financial bid evaluation results of 30.10.2025. After uploading the final results of technical bid evaluation, the financial bids of the four technically qualified bids were opened on 30.10.2025. The results of final evaluation were also uploaded on 30.10.2025. As upon financial bid evaluation, the respondent no. 4 with an offered bid value of Rs. 5,80,87,008/- emerged as the lowest bidder [L-1], its rank was shown as L-1 in the GeM portal. The petitioner who had offered its bid value at Rs. 6,17,25,600/- emerged as the L-2 bidder and M/s Sonu Enterprises with an offered bid value of Rs. 6,17,52,000/- was adjudged as L-3. The fourth bidder [L-4] offered a bid value of Rs. 7,17,84,000/-.
26. As already mentioned above, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the notarized undertaking was not submitted by the respondent no. 4 at the time of on-line bid submission and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4, it did not traverse specifically on the said aspect. In the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4 had mentioned that while submitting its response on 24.10.2025, he also uploaded a declaration certificate. In view of the controversy arose on the issue in a such manner, the respondent no. 3 was directed, on 26.02.2026, to file an affidavit to bring the entire technical bids submitted on-line by the two bidders, M/s Kamakhya Travels [the respondent no. 4] and M/s Sonu Enterprises before the bid submission closing date. In deference to the Order dated 26.02.2026, the Page No. 17/23 respondent no. 3 filed the affidavit on 12.03.2026, to bring therewith the technical bids of the petitioner and M/s Sonu Enterprise on record.
27. In the affidavit of the respondent no. 3, it is averred that the notarized undertaking bearing e-stamp dated 02.09.2025 was uploaded by the petitioner in the GeM portal at 06-40 a.m. on 08.09.2025, that is, before the bid submission closing date of 12.09.2025. The notarized undertaking bearing e-stamp dated 02.09.2025 is found available at Page nos. 429 to 431 of the affidavit. The notarized undertaking dated 12.09.2025 of M/s Sonu Enterprises is found available at Page nos. 567 to 568 of the same affidavit.
28. In W.B. State Electricity Board [supra], the respondent nos. 1 to 4, which was a consortium of four companies, was one of the three bidders in the fray. After opening of the bids, the bid of the respondent consortium was found to be the lowest and when the appellant made further scrutiny, a good number of arithmetical errors were discovered in the bid. The respondent consortium attributed the mistakes to repetitive systematic typographical data transmission failure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant Board was justified in not permitting the respondent consortium to correct the errors which had occurred in a highly competitive bidding process. It has been observed that the mistakes might be intentional but it was not beyond the control of the respondent consortium to correct the same before the submission of the bid and had the respondent consortium been vigilant in checking the Tender Documents before their submission, the mistakes could have been avoided.
29. The subject-matter in the tender process involved in Central Coalfields Limited [supra] was for a work, 'Outsourcing for Overburden Removal [1050.00 L. CuM] and Coal Extraction [975.00 L. Te] and transportation by deploying surface miner at Ashok OPC, Piparwar Area for a period of 8 years'. The NIT / Bid Document prescribed for submission of the earnest money Page No. 18/23 deposit [EMD] either in the form of demand draft [DD] / banker's cheque [BC] / banker's pay order [BPO] or irrevocable bank guarantee [BG] from any schedule bank 'in the format given in the Bid Document'. On scrutiny, the respondent joint venture consortium [JVC], SLL - SML's BG submitted for the EMD was found in a format, other than the prescribed format, and the JVC's bid was rejected on that ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the employer Coal India Limited had not relaxed or deviated from the requirement of furnishing the BG in the prescribed format, every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format and therefore, the failure on the respondent JVC to furnish the BG in the prescribed format was a sufficient reason for the employer to reject its bid.
30. The appeals in Afcons Infrastructure Limited [supra] were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court wherein it was held that the respondent joint venture, GYT - TPL JV was eligible to bid for a tender invited by the Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited [NMRCL] for the work of design and construction of a viaduct between Jhansi Rani Square and Lukamanya Nagar Station on the East-West Corridor of Nagpur Metro Rail Project. After opening of the technical bids, the bid of the respondent GYT - TPL JV was disqualified due to not meeting the eligibility conditions as stipulated in Clause 4.2[a] of Section III. Clause 4.2[a] prescribed for the bidder's experience of undertaking one metro civil construction work for minimum INR 3200 million and in the said contract-work, the bidder should have completed viaduct length of not less than 5 km. The respondent GYT - TPL JV claimed such experience in respect of an Inter-City High Speed Railway Project. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is a qualitative difference between an inter-city railway project and a metro railway project and also a qualitative difference in the construction of a viaduct for an inter-city railway project and a metro rail project which is intra-city. Observing so, the Hon'ble Court did not interfere Page No. 19/23 with the decision of the NMRCL to disqualify the bid of the respondent GYT - TPL JV.
31. The decisions in W.B. State Electricity Board [supra]; Central Coalfields Limited [supra]; and Afcons Infrastructure Limited [supra] have been considered in Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways [India] Limited [supra]. The legal proposition which has emerged is that a competitive bidding process offers a fair opportunity to all the bidders to compete for a project and it affords the authority a choice to select the best of competitors in a competitive price without prejudice to the quality of the work. While benefit to the public exchequer is an important criterion in award of contract, it is also in public interest, a requirement to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited. The words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous and they should be given their due meaning and necessary significance. The sanctity of public tenders and contract is a fundamental principle and there must be stability, transparency and predictability at all the stages of a competitive bidding process.
32. The lis in Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways [India] Limited [supra] arose on a challenge made by the respondent no. 1 after the respondent employer, the State of West Bengal refused to treat the respondent no. 1 as the highest bidder by permitting it to rectify its financial bid after the bidding process was over. After the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the respondent no. 1 preferred a writ appeal wherein the Division Bench observed that the error in quoting the figure by the respondent no. 1 was inadvertent. Observing that since the respondent no. 1 had promptly sought correction of the error immediately after reopening of the price bids, the Division Bench directed the employer State to evaluate the Bil of Quantity [BoQ] rate by treating the amount offered by the respondent no. 1 as the per day amount and then, on that basis to compute the total amount for the Page No. 20/23 entire contract period of 1095 days. In the price bid, the respondent no. 1 instead of quoting the price for the entire contract period of 1095 days, had uploaded per day amount of the BoQ. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside and quashed the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench and allowed the employer State to proceed with the tender process for finalization of the award of contract in terms of the notice inviting tender. One of the legal propositions emerging from the afore-noted decisions is that after the stage of bid submission, a participant bidder whose technical bid had been adjudged non-responsive at the stage of technical bid evaluation, cannot be permitted to plead that its technical bid should be declared responsive on the basis of any additional documents submitted after the bid submission.
33. Clause 2.1 and Clause 2.2 of the LoI had enumerated the documents which must be uploaded along with the technical bid. Sub-clause [g] of Clause 2.2 mentioned about an undertaking on stamp paper for providing vehicles in case of Award of Work. A format for notarized undertaking by the bidder was prescribed in the Technical Bid of the Bid Document. In Para 4 of the prescribed format, the bidder had to state and swear that he was neither staff of NHIDCL nor related to any staff of NHIDCL [Staff such as deputation / on contractual basis / outsource agencies]. It is not a case of any of the parties that there was a prescribed form in which the certificate, as indicated in Clause 2.1 of the NIT, was to be submitted by the bidder along with the Technical Bid.
34. In the present case, the reason to place the technical bid of the respondent no. 4 in the disqualified category after opening was cited as 'want of certificate that none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives, etc. are participating in the bid'. In Clause 4 of the NIT, it was mentioned that 'none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives or any of the contractor / vendor / agencies assigned work / contract in NHIDCL will be considered for bidding Page No. 21/23 for hiring of vehicles. A certificate in this regard should be furnished by the bidder along with Technical Bid'.
35. As already found above from the affidavit of the respondent no. 3 that a notarized undertaking bearing e-stamp dated 02.09.2025 was part of the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 4 which was uploaded in the GeM portal on 08.09.2025. The said notarized undertaking dated 02.09.2025 is found to be in conformity with the format of undertaking prescribed in the Technical Bid of the Bid Document. The stand of the respondent NHIDCL is to the effect that the respondent no. 4 was initially placed in the disqualified category for non-submission of the certificate that none of the staff of the NHIDCL, their relatives, etc. was participating in the bidding process and on scrutiny of the Bid Document of the respondent no. 4 by the Evaluation Committee in the GeM portal and after receipt of the representation, it was found that the notarized undertaking was uploaded in the form of a notarized undertaking by the respondent no. 4 in the GeM portal at the time of bid submission itself, a fact which has also been vouched by the respondent no. 3 in its affidavit.
36. The propositions are settled, as also referred to in the afore-mentioned decisions, that the decision-making process of the tendering authority in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should ordinarily be respected and interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. A decision of accepting or rejecting a bid of a tenderer, taken by the tendering authority, is not to be interfered with unless the decision is found to be of such arbitrary or irrational nature which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. For interference, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. A mere disagreement with the decision-making process of the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The constitutional courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with Page No. 22/23 the decision of the tendering authority and ought not to substitute its view as if it is sitting on it as an appellate authority. The tendering authority having authored the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents of the tendering authority, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms and conditions of the tender documents. It has been held that it is possible that the tendering authority may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
37. From the stand taken by the tendering authority in the case in hand, it is found that the tendering authority has accepted that submission of the notarized undertaking in the prescribed format would fulfill the condition as regards the certificate mentioned in Clause 2.1 of the NIT. In the absence of any prescribed format in which the certificate was required to be submitted and in view of presence of a sworn statement in the notarized undertaking to the effect that the bidder was neither a staff of NHIDCL nor related to any staff of NHIDCL, if the tendering authority had accepted that the submission of the notarized certificate along with the technical bid by the bidder was sufficient to fulfill the condition then this Court is not to make any endeavour to reach at a different conclusion and has to defer to such interpretation.
38. From the materials brought on record, as discussed above, it has emerged that the notarized undertaking bearing e-stamp dated 02.09.2025 was part of the technical bid uploaded by the respondent no. 4 on 08.09.2025 at the time of bid submission. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the tendering authority to transfer the respondent no. 4 from the disqualified category in which he was placed originally after opening of the technical bids on 22.10.2025, to the qualified category after completion of the Page No. 23/23 process of evaluation of the technical bids on 30.10.2025 a decision which does not for any interference. It is not found that in the process of decision- making, the tendering authority had taken into consideration any additional document received from the respondent no. 4, submitted after the last date of submission of the bids to arrive at the decision.
39. After the final results of technical bid evaluation were uploaded on 30.10.2025, the financial bids of the four technically responsive bidders were opened on 30.10.2025. The criteria for financial bid evaluation was through Least Cost System, that is, the lowest quoted bidder was to be selected. The respondent no. 4 quoted a bid value of Rs. 5,80,87,008/- to emerge as the lowest [L-1] bidder as against the bid value quoted by the petitioner at Rs. 6,17,25,600/- to emerge as the L-2 bidder. There is, therefore, no reason for this Court to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to declare it as the lowest bidder [L-1] for the finding reached that there is no reason to cancel the bid of the respondent no. 4.
40. In view of the observations made and the reasons recorded, in the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not merited and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered. The interim order stands recalled. The records, if any, placed before the court are to be returned. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
Digitally signed by Ananta KonwarDate: 2026.03.30 17:21:57 +05'30' JUDGE Comparing Assistant