Gauhati High Court
S.G.F. Infra Private Limited vs The Union Of India And 10 Ors on 26 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010260512025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6694/2025
S.G.F. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.NO. F-961 GURAH BAKSHI NAGAR, JAMMU,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY NAMELY SRI SANTOSH SAHANI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, SON OF LATE SH. HARILAL SAHANI, RESIDENT
OF 46, SINDURIALI PATH, BATORI 24, NABIN NAGAR, ZOO ROAD, PO- ZOO
ROAD, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, STATE ASSAM, PIN CODE- 781024
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS
THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110011
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN
RING ROAD
DELHI CANTT
NEW DELHI- 110010
3:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION (EAST)
GUWAHATI
ASSAM- 900885
C/O 99 APO
4:CHIEF ENGINEER
PROJECT UDAYAK
DOOM DOOMA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
C/O 99 APO
Page No.# 2/7
PIN- 931715
5:THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PROJECT UDAYAK
DOOM DOOMA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
C/O 99 APO
PIN- 931715
6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL) CUM PRESIDING OFFICER
TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
HQ CE(P) UDAYAK
DOOM DOOMA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
C/O 99 APO
PIN- 931715
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) CUM MEMBER
TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
HQ CE(P) UDAYAK
DOOM DOOMA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
C/O 99 APO
PIN- 931715
8:THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER (AAO) CUM MEMBER
TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
HQ CE(P) UDAYAK
DOOM DOOMA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
C/O 99 APO
PIN- 931715
9:COMMANDER
48
BRTF (BORDER ROADS TASK FORCE)
C/O 99 APO
PIN- 930048
10:OC
1444
BCC C/O 99 APO
PIN- 931715
Page No.# 3/7
11:M/S GRRB ASSOCIATES
HOLDING NO.06/623
GYAN VILLA
MANAV KALYAN ROAD OPPOSITE BRAHMA KUMARI ASHRAM LANE
PO- TIUNSUKIA (ASSAM)- 78612
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Pant, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Gupta, CGC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 26.11.2025 Issue notice making it returnable on 16.12.2025 at 2 PM.
2. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and accepts notice.
3. As the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are duly represented by Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC, extra copies of the writ petition be served upon him during the course of the day.
4. As regards the Respondent No.11, the Petitioner is directed to take steps by way of Speed Post during the course of the day.
5. In addition to that, the Petitioner is directed to affect service upon the Respondent No.11 by way of dasti routed through the Registry of this Court and file an affidavit of service. The dasti service be affected upon the Respondent No.11 on or before 01.12.2025.
6. The case of the Petitioner herein is that a notice Inviting Tender was issued inviting bidders for "Design and Construction of 120 meter span Page No.# 4/7 Steel Superstructure (Through Type) Major PM completed in all respect over Peepani-III Nallah at KM 32,2000 on road Hayuliang Metaliang Chaglohagam 1444 BCC Sector under 48 TF in Arunachal Pradesh State.
7. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process along with various other bidders. The Petitioner's bid was held to be technically not responsive vide an evaluation carried out on 31.07.2025 on the ground that the EMD exemption limit is Rs.11,00,000/- only as the firm enlisted with BRO vide Index No. S-68 at HQ DGBR. It was also mentioned that in the tender, EMD sought for Rs.15,00,000/- and the firm have not submitted the additional security amount against the EMD for which the Petitioner firm was disqualified.
8. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has referred to Clause 11 of the Notice Inviting Tender and submitted that the earnest money is not required to be attached with the tender by the valid enlisted contractor with BRO who had submitted standing security deposit and MSME registered firms as per Rule 170(i) of GFR, 2017. He submitted that as the Petitioner in question was a valid enlisted contractor with BRO and had also a standing security deposit and apart from that, an MSME registered firm, the Petitioner was entitled to EMD exemption. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner's bid on 31.07.2025 being contrary to law as well as the tender conditions were brought to the attention of the concerned Respondent Authorities. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the Respondent Authorities duly accepted the same but took up another ground that the Petitioner firm was a Medium Enterprise and as such, not entitled to the benefit in terms with Rule 170(i) of the GFR, 2017. The Page No.# 5/7 learned Senior counsel submitted that this ground taken in the technical evaluation carried out on 07.11.2025 is not only a fresh ground taken but the same appears to be none without taking cognizance that the Petitioner is a Small Enterprise as per the Udyam Registration Certificate issued by the Ministry of MSME. He therefore submitted that the Respondent Authorities for the reasons best known are bent upon to adopt all means to reject the technical bid of the Petitioner and as such the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in rejecting the Technical Bid of the Petitioner is not fair and transparent thereby violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC submitted that the Petitioner herein did not submit the MSME certificate at the time of submission of the bid. In addition to that, the Petitioner had also not applied as an MSME which is a requirement for taking the benefit in terms with Rule 170(i) of the GFR, 2017.
10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the parties on the question of issuance of interim directions.
11. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance to the technical evaluation carried out on 07.11.2025, the financial bid was opened on the same date and the respondent No.11 has been found to be the L1 bidder. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as on date, there is no agreement entered into by and between the Respondent No.11 with the Respondent Authorities and as such, till the next date, the said may be stalled.
12. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective Page No.# 6/7 submission. It is the prima facie opinion of this Court that the Respondents have rejected the Petitioner's Technical Bid on 31.07.2025 and 07.11.2025 on entirely different grounds. A perusal of Clause 11 of the Notice Inviting Tender prima facie reveals that in order to get exemption from the Earnest Money Deposit, the tenderer in question has to be a valid enlisted contractor with BRO who have submitted standing security and MSME registered firm. As it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent Authorities that the Petitioner did not claim itself to be an MSME registered firm at the time of submission of the bid, unless the records are placed before this Court, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the Petitioner has submitted the bid as an MSME registered firm. Further to that, it is also required to be ascertained from the records as to whether the Petitioner submitted the MSME Udyam Registration Certificate wherein it is mentioned as a Small Enterprise.
13. It is also relevant to observe that the Petitioner's bid was rejected on 07.11.2025 and on the same date, the financial Bid was opened. However, the Petitioner approached this Court on 22.11.2025.
14. Under such circumstances, without permitting the Respondents a chance to bring on record their stand, it would not be proper to pass any interim directions today.
15. Taking into account the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim directions today which shall be considered on the next date when the records are made available by the Respondents in respect to the tender in question.
16. Be that as it may, it is observed that if any agreement is entered into Page No.# 7/7 by and between the Respondent No.11 with the Respondent Authorities during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and merely because of the fact that this Court has not granted any interim directions today, the same shall not create any equitable interest in favour of the Respondent No.11.
17. The Respondents are directed to produce the records on the next date without fail.
18. It is further observed that this Court shall consider as to whether any interim direction are required to be passed on the next date, if the writ petition cannot be disposed of on the next date.
19. The Respondents shall bring on record their stand by filing affidavits on or before 10.12.2025. Liberty given to the Petitioner to file reply, if any, on or before 16.12.2025.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant