Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Eastern Technology Group vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 7 April, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010068992026




                                                          undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1975/2026

         EASTERN TECHNOLOGY GROUP
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT AIDC, R.G. BARUAH ROAD,
         GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, SRI
         DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, SON OF SHRI DHARANI CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT
         OF FLAT NO. 4E, DICHANG APARTMENT, BELTOLA TINIALI, GUWAHATI,
         DIST. KAMRUP METRO, PIN- 781028, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
         DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-
         781006.

         2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
          STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENTAUTHORITY
          REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM
         ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
         ANCILLARY BLOCK NO. 1
          JANATA BHAWAN
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781006.

         3:THE ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
          REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CEO
         ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
          REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
          STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
         ASSAM
                                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

             ANCILLARY BLOCK NO. 1
             JANATA BHAWAN
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM-781006

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BANIK, MS F BEGUM,T SARKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE,




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                            ORDER

07.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for all the respondents.

2. By a Bid Document dated 13.03.2026, the respondent no. 3 has invited bids on-line for a number of items :- [i] High End Laptop - Notebook; [ii] Computer Printer; [iii] Line interactive UPS with AVR; [iv] High End Desktop Computer; [v] Scanner; [vi] Multifunction Printer [Print, Scan, Copy]; [vii] Multimedia Projector; [viii] Smartphone; [ix] Tablet Computer; [x] Office Suite Software.

3. The petitioner which is a proprietorship firm has claimed that it has experience of supplying the items mentioned in the Bid Document. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by a clause in the Bid Document which has restricted participation of a proprietorship firm. When the petitioner made a Representation at the time of pre-bid query period seeking modification of the said restrictive clause, the Tendering Authority has made a Reply to the effect that a proprietorship firm carries significant risk and in the event the proprietor dies/shut then business continuity would be under risk. Therefore, the Government procurement for large equipments and longer warranty of five years would suffer. It has been reasoned that in case of a company, it survives even after the death, insolvency or retirement of its member but in the case of proprietorship firm, it would not survive after death of the proprietor.

Page No.# 3/3

4. The matter would require further consideration.

5. Issue notice, returnable on 13.05.2026.

6. As Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents, issuance of formal notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Mr. Banik shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Borpujari within 2 [two] working days from today.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim prayer.

8. As per Bid Document, last date of submission of bid is up to 13.04.2026. The petitioner has stated that save and except the alleged restrictive clause relating to eligibility debarring proprietorship firm to submit bid in response to the Bid Document, the petitioner fulfils all other eligibility criteria. Prima facie, the clause whereby the restriction has been put in place for a sole proprietorship to participate in the bidding process will require an examination qua the principles embedded in Article 14 and Article 19[1][g] of the Constitution. As the participation in the Bid Document is in the GeM portal, the petitioner may proceed to submit its bid on-line as per the terms and conditions of the Bid Document subject to further examination of the afore-stated eligibility criteria.

9. List the case on 13.05.2026.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant