Gauhati High Court - Kohima
Ms No Hassle Deal vs The Airport Authority Of India (Aai) And ... on 17 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC020000792026 2026:GAU-NL:126
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/25/2026
MS NO HASSLE DEAL
REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR, SHRI TOVI JAKHALU, R/O
PURANA BAZAR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AAI) AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AAI DIMAPUR
AIRPORT, NAGALAND.
2:THE DGM (ENGG-CIVIL)
AAI DIMAPUR AIRPORT NAGALAND.
3:MS H.H. CO. CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER
REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR
SHRI HUTOKHU AWOMI
HOUSE. NO. 211 ERALIBILL
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND.
4:MS NITHIN SAI CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER
SHRI G. NITHIN SAI
NEAR NEERU BRAGATI PARK
SRINAGAR COLONY
80 FEET ROAD ANANTHAPURAMU
ANDHRA PRADES
Advocate for the Petitioner : JOSHUA SHEQI, KETHO SEKHOSE,A HUKAVI
SUMI,VIVANA,RUBICA KIHO,TUNATO YEPTHO,R WONCHIBENI
TSANGLO,KIVITOLI SWU,YEKA SUMI,KEVI KIRE,K LILY SWU,KEDI KOSO,ANANI
ACHUMI,P MHONBENI EZUNG,ATOKA,MIKA H AYE,CHINGMEI KONYAK,NAGALI
SHOHE
Page No.# 2/11
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
17.03.2026 Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Priyana Chettri, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel appears for the Respondent No. 3.
PREFACE
2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the Tender Summary Report dated 12.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner's Technical Bid was rejected and the firm of the private Respondent No. 3 was declared as L1 and the firm of the private Respondent No. 4 as L2.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts of the instant case are that the Airport Authority of India, i.e. the Respondent No. 1 had issued a notice inviting e-tender thereby inviting eligible contractors to participate through e-Portal for reconstruction of the runway from Chainage 50m to 350m with rigid pavement and associated works at Dimapur Airport - SH:- Strengthening of affected area of Runway 30/12 and allied works at an estimated cost of Rs. 5,65,46,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Sixty-Five Lakhs and Forty-Six Thousand). In the said Notice Inviting e-Tender (for short 'the NIT'), a Page No.# 3/11 Critical Date-sheet was incorporated. In terms with the Critical Date-sheet, the bid document downloaded. Sale start date was on 09.01.2026 from 09:30 hours. Clarifications start date was 09.01.2026 from 09:30 hours and the clarification end date was 16.01.2026 up to 18:00 hours. The bid submission start date was on 09.01.2026 from 09:30 hours and the bid submission end date was on 30.01.2026 up to 18:00 hours. The last date for submission of the original insurance, surety bond/BG against EMD, if not paid online on CPP Portal was on 03.02.2026 up to 18:00 hours.
4. It is also seen from a perusal of the NIT that the bids were required to be submitted in two envelopes. Envelope-1 was in relation to Technical Bid and pre-qualification documents whereas Envelope-2 is the Financial Bid.
5. Clause 2B of the NIT stipulated the documents which would form a part of the Technical Bid. Sub-clause (viii) is the scanned copy of the Signed Integrity Pact as per Appendix-III. .Sub-clause (x) is the scanned copy of Form-A - details of similar works completed during last seven years with completion certificate issued by client. Clause (xvi) is the scanned copy of Digitally Signed Undertaking from parent Company as per Appendix-VIII. Sub-clause (xxiv) relates to the PQ Proforma duly filled.
6. Clause 2(VI)(c) stipulated the qualifying requirements of the contractors/tenderers containing the details as regards completion of works. These details are to be provided in a format as stipulated in Form- A with supporting documents issued by the client.
Page No.# 4/11
7. The NIT also included the General Instructions for Online Bid Submission in Appendix-A. There is also another document enclosed to the said NIT, i.e. the General Guidelines for Bidders.
8. Clause 25 of the General Guidelines for Bidders stipulates that the Airport Authority of India can reject a tender under various circumstances. Sub-clause (e),(f),(g) and (h) of Clause 25 being relevant are reproduced herein under:-
"e) Any deviation in the Tender submission procedure will be considered as non-responsive bid and liable to be rejected.
f) A Tenderer shall submit a responsive bid, failing which his Tender will be liable to be rejected.
g) Tender in which any of the particulars and prescribed information are missing or are incomplete, in any respect and/or prescribed conditions are not fulfilled, shall be considered non-
responsive and is liable to be rejected.
h) The tenderer is expected to examine the tender document including all instructions, forms, terms, specifications, drawings, etc. Failure to furnish all information required as per the tender documents or submission of a tender not substantially responsive to the tender document in any respect may result in the rejection of the tender."
9. Clause 28 stipulates the Implementation of the Integrity Pact. In terms with sub-clause (a) of Clause 28 of the General Guidelines for Bidders, signing of the Integrity Pact as per Appendix-III is mandatory for each bidder/contractor in the procurement/bid process. The Integrity Pact Page No.# 5/11 is required to be signed on each page by the person authorized by the bidder to sign the bid for submission or the person authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the successful bidder. The scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded by the bidder (alongwith unconditional acceptance of AAI's tender conditions) in the Envelope-1.
10. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of that the Petitioner alongwith three other bidders participated in the said tender process which included the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Petitioner's bid was rejected on 11.02.2026 on the ground of not meeting NIT criteria. Thereupon, on the same date, the Financial Bid of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was opened and the Respondent No. 3's Financial Bid was found to be the L1.
11. The records reveal that on 14.02.2026, the Petitioner, on coming to learn about the rejection of the Petitioner's Technical Bid and the opening of the Financial Bid of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submitted a representation questioning the decision to reject the Petitioner's Technical Bid alleging that it is a case of foul play in order to choose the blue-eyed person of the Authority.
12. The Respondent No. 2 issued a communication on 17.02.2026 in reply to the Petitioner's representation informing inter alia that Petitioner's bid was rejected on the four grounds. They were:-
(1) The Petitioner had not submitted the Experience Certificate as per the e-NIT criteria, i.e. in Form-A. Page No.# 6/11 (2) The Petitioner did not submitted the undertaking from the Parent Company as is required as per Appendix-VIII.
(3) The PQ Proforma which was required to be filled was not submitted; and (4) Integrity pact submitted by the Petitioner was incomplete.
13. The Petitioner thereupon submitted another representation dated 18.02.2026 wherein it was mentioned that the PQ Proforma was duly filled as per the NIT and the Petitioner had submitted the Form-A separately and had enclosed as Annexure-I for ready reference. It was also mentioned that in the PQ there were no sufficient space provided for writing. It was also mentioned that the Experience Certificate as per the e-NIT criteria of similar work pertaining to NH road, no clarification was sought from the Petitioner for that work. It is relevant to take note of the fact that in the said representation, the Petitioner duly admitted that the Integrity Pact though submitted, there were no signatures of the witnesses and as per the Petitioner, the same could have been resolved through shortfall documents. It was also mentioned that in so far as non- submission of Appendix-VIII, the Petitioner missed out as the same was submitted at the last hour.
14. The non-consideration of the said representation and the rejection of the Petitioner's Technical Bid led the Petitioner to file the present writ petition.
15. The record reveals that this Court, vide an Order dated 20.02.2026 Page No.# 7/11 issued notice, however, no interim direction was granted.
16. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that in the meantime, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have jointly filed an affidavit raising various preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. On merits, while denying to the various allegations made in the writ petition, the decision of the Respondent Authorities to reject the Petitioner's Technical Bid was supported by elaborating the reasons for rejection of the Petitioner's Technical Bid. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of Annexure-4 to the Affidavit-in-opposition which is the Scrutiny Sheet of the four participating Bidders. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner had not submitted the Undertaking from the parent Company as per Appendix-VII. This aspect, the Petitioner also duly admits in the Representation dated 18.02.2026. In so far as the PQ Proforma it is mentioned that the Petitioner have not submitted.
17. At this stage, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of the Bids which were submitted by all the participating Bidders which included the Petitioner. The records of the Bids were produced before this Court during the course of hearing. A perusal of the bid submission/confirmation of the Petitioner shows the bid documents which the Petitioner have submitted. The said bid submission/confirmation shows various file names and its description. There is a file name being 'PWD_Registration.pdf' and it is described as PQ Proforma duly filled.
18. This Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that from a perusal of the bid submissions/confirmation Page No.# 8/11 it appears that there is a "PQ Proforma duly filled". The learned counsel mentioned that though in the bid submission/confirmation document there is a description that the "PQ Proforma duly filled" but no such document, i.e. PQ Proforma was submitted by the Petitioner.
19. Be that as it may, a perusal of Annexure-12 of the affidavit-in-reply so submitted by the Petitioner reveals that a PQ Proforma was uploaded. This aspect this Court would deal at a later stage of the present Judgment.
20. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of that in the Scrutiny Sheet, it is also mentioned that the Experience Certificate submitted by the Petitioner is not meeting NIT criteria. In addition to that, the Respondents have also enclosed the various documents which were uploaded by the Petitioner. A PQ Proforma in respect to another bidder, namely M/S Trident Enterprise was also enclosed to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Respondents to show how the PQ Proforma was required to be filled up.
21. The Respondent No. 3 has also filed an affidavit, however, taking into consideration that the contents of the said affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent No. 3 is almost similar to that of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court, for the sake of brevity is not detailing out its contents.
22. The records reveal that an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Petitioner claiming inter alia that the Petitioner had submitted various documents including the PQ Proforma. The Petitioner also claimed to have Page No.# 9/11 uploaded the Integrity Pact and the same was enclosed to the affidavit-in- reply.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
23. The submission made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties being in line with their pleadings, this Court, for the sake of brevity is not reproducing the same.
24. The question which arises for adjudication is whether the Respondent Authorities were justified in rejecting the Technical Bid of the Petitioner?
25. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant Judgment, this Court had taken note of the various Clauses of the NIT. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also placed before this Court all the bids of the participating four bidders including the bid submitted by the Petitioner.
26. Clause 28 of the General Guidelines for Bidders stipulates as to how the Integrity Pact is required to be submitted.
27. The records which have been produced before this Court reveal that the Integrity Pact which was submitted by the Petitioner was an incomplete document taking into account that in the signature column of the participating bidder as well as the witnesses the same have been left blank. There is no date. It is also not mentioned who signed it.
Page No.# 10/11
28. It also appears from a perusal of the said document the same one had put the signature on each page of the document with the seal of the Proprietor. The said Integrity pact so produced before this Court, therefore, is an incomplete document and cannot be acted upon. In other words, the document which have been uploaded as an Integrity Pact by the Petitioner does not amount to submission of the Integrity Pact. At this stage, this Court also find another document enclosed as the Integrity pact submitted by the Petitioner wherein in the signature column, there is a signature of the Bidder. But the question arises as to how the same is possible inasmuch as the records produced do not contain the signature of the Bidder in the Integrity Pact so submitted. It appears that the document submitted by the Petitioner in the Affidavit-in-Reply is subsequently interpolated. Apart from that the Petitioner had vide the representation dated 18.02.2026 also admitted that the Integrity Pact so submitted by the Petitioner did not contain the signature. Even on the self admission of the Petitioner the Integrity Pact submitted was, therefore, incomplete.
29. This Court had perused the records of the bids which were submitted by the Petitioner and there is nothing to show that the PQ Proforma was uploaded. This Court now takes note of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioner and more particularly Annexure-12. A perusal of the said document shows that only in respect of Column-1 Serial Nos. 3 to 27 except Column No. 11 have been filled up by putting a tick mark without providing the details. In so far as Clauses 2.1, 27.1.1, 27.1.2, 27.1.3, 28, 28.1 and 29 the same have not been filled up. Further to that, the PQ Proforma there is no date mentioned.
Page No.# 11/11
30. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the PQ Proforma filed by M/S Trident Enterprise wherein proper details were provided. Therefore, even assuming for argument sake the Petitioner had uploaded the PQ Proforma, the same was also an incomplete document.
31. In so far as submission of the parent Company's undertaking in Appendix-VIII is concerned, the Petitioner in its Representation dated 18.02.2026 have duly admitted that the said document was not uploaded.
32. It is well settled principle of law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors. , reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 that the scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to the decision of the Tendering Authority to accept or reject a bid is very limited. Taking into account the said proposition of law and the fact that the Petitioner herein have not uploaded the documents as are observed herein above, the Respondent authorities were within their rights to reject the Petitioner's Technical Bid in terms with Clause 25 of the General Guidelines for Bidders.
33. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decision of the Respondent authorities in rejecting the bid of the Petitioner for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
34. Records which were produced are being returned to Ms. Priyana Chettri, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant