Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/194/2023 on 20 February, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page no. #1 of 15
GAHC010004332023
2026:GAU-AS:2833
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ petition [c] no. 194/2023
1. M/s Gunama Enterprise, a Partnership Firm,
having registered Office at 1 no. Duliajan
Gaon, P.O. Anandapara, Police Station -
Duliajan, District - Dibrugarh, Assam, Pin :
786602.
2. Monjit Tamuli, aged about 55 years, S/o
Padmadhar Tamuli, R/o. 1 no. Duliajan
Gaon, P.O. Anandapara, Police Station -
Duliajan, District - Dibrugarh, Pin : 786602.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Oil India Limited [A Govt of India
Enterprice], to be represented by Managing
Director, Oil India Limited Duliajan, Dist. -
Dibrugarh, Assam, Pin - 786602
2. The Chief General Manager, Contracts
Department, Oil India Limited, Duliajan,
Assam, Pin - 786602.
3. The General Manager [Contracts] Oil India
Limited, PHQ, Noonmati, Kamrup[M],
Assam, Pin :- 781004.
Page no. #2 of 15
...................Respondents
BeFore Hon'BLe Mr. JUStice MAniSH cHoUDHUrY Advocates :
Advocate for the Petitioner : S.J. Sarmah, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent Oil Authorities : Mr. A. Sharma, Advocate Date of hearing : 20.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.02.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMent & orDer [orAL] [M. Choudhury, J] This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail rejection of the petitioners' technical bid submitted in response to a tender process initiated by the respondent Oil India Limited authorities vide Invitation for Bids [IFB]/E-Tender no. CDT8813P22.
2. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm wherein the petitioner no. 2 is one of the partners. For ease of reference, the petitioners are referred to hereinafter as 'the petitioner' only.
3. By the IFB/E-Tender no. CDT8813P22, the respondent Oil India Limited [OIL] in connection with its operations, invited Local Competitive Bids Page no. #3 of 15 [LCB] from competent and experienced/approved Contractors/Firms for the work/service, 'Hiring the services of 34 [thirty-four] Nos. brand new 42/48 seater fully built diesel buses [to be purchased after issuance of LOA from the vehicle manufacturer or from their authorised dealer[s] as a fully built bus] of Model: TATA STARBUS LPO 10.2/54/ ASHOK LEYLAND LS 1510.3T6RB /EICHER SKYLINE PRO 3010 L or equivalent model bus having 42/48 seating capacity, [with wire mesh protection on windshield, side window glasses & rear wind screen] to be stationed at any place of OIL's operational areas in Assam & Arunachal Pradesh, for a period of 4[four] years for round the clock duties authorized by the Company'. The tender process was under 'Open E-Tender Composite Bid System with OIL's offered Rates on 'One-Bidder-Two-Bus'
4. As per the E-Tender Notice, the bid closing date was 14.12.2021 and the Technical Bid opening date was also 14.12.2021. The bids were to be opened at the specified office mentioned in the E-Tender Notice. The tender process was in Two-Bid System consisting of the Technical Bid and the Financial Bid. The bidders were to upload the bids in the designated Procurement Portal - http://etender.srm.oilindia.in/irj/portal.
5. The bidders were asked to submit the Technical Bid along with all the annexures and proforma [wherever applicable] and copies of documents in electronic form through the Oil's e-procurement portal within the bid closing date and time stipulated in the E-Tender, as per the user manual available in Oil's E-Tender Portal. The Technical Bids were to be submitted as per the terms of reference/technical specifications of the Bidding Document. The documents accompanying the Technical Bid were also to be submitted in the physical form in sealed envelope before the Designated Authority on or before 12-45 hours [IST] on the bid closing date indicated in the IFB. Timely delivery of the documents in physical form, as per Clause 11.2.2 of the Bidding Document, was the responsibility of the bidder.
Page no. #4 of 15
6. In Clause 2.0 of the Bidding Document, the Bid Evaluation Criteria were laid down in the following manner :
2.0 BID EVALUATION CRITERIA :
2.1 TECHNICAL CRITERIA :
2.1.1 The bidder shall have experience of SIMILAR work against one contract [along with Emergent/Extension Contract, if any, using the same vehicle as deployed against the original Contract without any time gap] of minimum Rs. 39.45 lakhs [Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only] in Public Sector Undertaking [PSU]/Central Government Organization / State Government Organization/ Government Corporations in previous 07 [seven] years to be reckoned from the original bid closing date i.e within the period 15/12/2014 to 14/12/2021 [both day inclusive].
Documentary evidence must be submitted along with the Bid. The documentary evidence must be in the form of Job Completion Certificate / Gross Payment Certificate / Work Execution Certificate etc. as applicable showing [a] Gross value of job done; and [b] Nature of job done; and [c] Time period covering as per the NIT.
Only Letter of Intent [LOI] / Letter of Award [LOA] /Work Order[s] and/or Services Entry sheet [SES] are not acceptable as evidence. However, if Letter of Intent [LOI] /Letter of Award [LOA] / Work Order[s] and/or Services Entry sheet [SES] are issued from OIL, then the same will be considered as evidence subject to successful verification with OIL's own records of execution.
Notes to clause 2.1.1:
[i] 'Similar Work' means providing Transport Services involving Heavy Passenger Vehicles/Buses/ Heavy Page no. #5 of 15 Vehicles/ Logistic Equipment or any other Transport Services.
[ii] The bidder must have experience of providing similar services to Public Sector Undertaking [PSU] / Central Government Organization / State Government Organization/Government Corporations for any length of time during the last 07[seven] years ending on 14.12.2021 [Original Bid Closing Date] i.e. for any length of time within the period 15/12/2014 to 14/12/2021 [both days. inclusive]. During this period of 07[seven] years, bidder must have successfully carried out one similar work of minimum Rs. 39.45 lakhs. Accordingly, the Starting Date and/or the Job Completion Date of the work need not necessarily fall within the seven years period of 15/12/2014 to 14/12/2021, but the value of work done must be of requisite amount within the period. [iii] Bidder[s] executing similar nature of work which is still running will also be taken into consideration if the applicant/bidder[s] meets the prescribed value within the period as mentioned above in one similar work. [iv] Similar work executed by a bidder for its own organization/subsidiary shall not be considered as experience for the purpose of meeting the experience.
Or [V] The bidder must have experience of providing attached bowser[s] / tanker[s] of capacity not less than 9KLs to Oil India Limited [i.e. experience of providing attached tanker[s] / bowser[s] to the contractor[s] engaged by Oil India Limited] continuously for a minimum period of 02 [two] complete years during the last 07 [seven] years to be reckoned from the [original bid closing date].
Bidders participating with experience of attached bowser[s] / tanker[s] services as above shall submit a self-declaration [as Page no. #6 of 15 per Annexure-H, as applicable] mentioning the following along with the bid as evidence:
[a] Contract number & name of contractor against which the vehicle was deployed for OIL's operation. [b] Vehicle Registration Number.
[c] Period for which the vehicle was deployed under the contract.
[d] Description of Service.
Note to Bidder[s] for Clause No.2.1.1[v] above: In case the time period of attached bowser[s] / tanker[s] services does not meet the minimum period of 02 [two] complete years in the original contract during the specified time period [during the last 07 years to be reckoned from the original Bid closing date] as above, the following must be met by the bidder[s] to be qualified against this tender: The time period of attached bowser[s] / tanker[s] services in extension[s] of a contract / in emergent contract[s] during the specified time period as above shall be added with time period of attached bowser[s] / tanker[s] services in the original contract within the specified time period to determine the attainment of the tendered requisite time period [continuously for a minimum period of two complete years]. This is applicable if, the extension[s] of the contract / the emergent contract[s] is/are/were awarded by Oil India Limited [OIL] for the same vehicle / service with the same terms & conditions of the original contract without any interruption of the services. Such bidder shall submit a self-declaration [as per Annexure- H, as applicable] mentioning the following along with the bid as evidence:
[a] Original contract number & name of contractor against which the vehicle was deployed for OIL's operation. [b] Extended contract number[s].
Page no. #7 of 15 [c] Emergent contract number[s].
[d] Vehicle Registration Number.
[e] Period for which the vehicle was deployed under the contract.
7. In Clause 2.3, the criteria for awarding contract was laid down in the following manner :
2.3. AWARD OF CONTRACT :
Award of contract will be done as under:
[a] Contracts will be awarded to successful bidders on 'one-bidder-two-buses' basis as applicable at Company offered rates.
[b] The award of contract will be decided on the basis of Draw of Lots.
[c] The bidders will be allotted priority number based on the results of the Draw of Lots. The bidder emerging first position in the Draw of Lots will be assigned as Priority No.1 and the rest will be continued as per their sequence in Draw of Lots respectively.
[d] The Present requirements of Big Buses are 34 Nos. which will be under 'one-bidder-two-buses' Contracts. Therefore 17 nos. of bidders are required for the present requirement.
[e] The total buses under this tender or the number of buses to be hired under each contract may increase/decrease depending upon future requirement.
[f] 08 [Eight] nos. of bidders will kept in the waiting list, for award of contract with the above condition as per their status for future requirement if any, upto a period of 01 year from the date of Draw of Lots or from the date of issue of first LOA whichever is earlier. Therefore, the number of bidders Page no. #8 of 15 sequenced through Draw of Lots will be upto a maximum of 25 numbers. However, Oil reserves the right to extend the validity of the waiting list and increase the number of bidders in the waiting list suitably.
[g] OIL may conduct the draw of lots before scrutiny of the bids. In the event, technically qualified bidders are less than the Company's requirement from the first Draw- of-lot, then the balance requirement shall be selected through a second Draw-of-lot. Subsequent Draw-of-lots in the above manner shall be conducted till the requirement of technically acceptable bidders is exhausted. OIL reserves the right to shortlist the appropriate nos. of bidders in the Draw-of-lots.
8. Though in the IFB/E-Tender the last date of submission of bids was mentioned as 14.12.2021, the last date was extended subsequently to 11.01.2022. The bids were open on 11.01.2022 and a total of 301 online bids were received in the OIL's E-Tender portal. As per the criteria in the Bidding Document, Draw of Lots [Lottery] against the tender was held on 28.01.2022 where a total of 34 nos. of bidders had been provisionally selected. The list of provisionally selected bidders were published on 28.01.2022. It was informed by a Notice dated 28.01.2022 to the provisionally selected bidders that the offers of the provisionally selected bidders in the Priority List would be scrutinized as per the tender qualification criteria. Bidders fulfilling the tender conditions would only be considered for further processing for award of contract. To fulfill the respondent OIL's requirement, contracts would be awarded to 17 nos. of bidders on 'One-Bidder-Two-Buses' basis as per the order of Priority List prepared from the Draw of Lots, subject to fulfillment of tender conditions. The remaining seventeen nos. of the provisionally selected bidders would be kept in waiting list in case of cancellation of any provisionally selected bidders from the Priority List during evaluation.
Page no. #9 of 15
9. In the provisional Priority List prepared after the Draw of Lots, the petitioner's name figured at Serial No. 17. The bids of the seventeen bidders whose names figured in the provisional Priority List, were scrutinized for acceptance. On 17.03.2022, the respondent OIL authorities after evaluation of Technical Bids of the first seventeen provisionally selected bidders, found fourteen of them responsive and the remaining three non-responsive. The petitioner's bid was one of the three bids which were adjudged non-responsive.
10. After the petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to set aside the impugned procedure adopted by the respondent OIL authorities to reject the bid of the petitioner and also for a direction to the respondent OIL authorities to accept the hard copy of the Technical and Financial documents filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2022 to make the petitioner a responsive bidder for award of the contract.
11. I have heard Mr. S.J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent OIL Authorities.
12. Mr. S.J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had come to learn on 19.12.2021 that his bid was successfully uploaded. However, the petitioner experienced technical issues at the time of uploading his bid in the procurement portal and realized subsequently that the technical and commercial job certificates and documents establishing his credentials might not have been uploaded. Realizing so, the petitioner by a Letter dated 28.02.2022 submitted those documents to the tendering authority. But, when the bids were scrutinized and the decision was notified on 17.03.2022, the petitioner's bid was declared non- responsive on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the required technical and financial documents in support of the credentials except submission of few documents such as Proformas and Tender documents and for the said reason, the petitioner's bid was not evaluated as per Bid Rejection Criteria [BRC]/Bid Evaluation Criteria [BEC] and was rejected. It Page no. #10 of 15 is his contention that when the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and had submitted that requisite documents, the petitioner's Technical Bid ought to have been accepted.
13. Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent OIL authorities has submitted that from the Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee notified on 17.03.2022, it was evident that bids of all the seventeen provisionally selected bidders were scrutinized strictly qua the terms and condition of the Bidding Document. The documents which were submitted by the petitioner on 28.02.2022 should have been part of the Technical Bid uploaded on or before the bid closing date, not to speak of the technical bid submitted on-line. It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents he had submitted relating to his credentials on 28.02.2022 were also part of the physical bid submitted on the bid closing date. The same is evident from the pleadings made in Paragraphs 7 & 8 of the writ petition and Prayer no. III.The Clause 3.2 of the Bidding Document had made it specific that only the bids received through the e-Procurement Portal shall only be accepted and bids received from any other form shall not be accepted. He has further contended that save and except the petitioner, none of the participant bidders had complained about experiencing difficulty in uploading their bids in the e-Procurement portal and as such, the reason shown by the petitioner regarding experiencing difficulty is not acceptable.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the contents of the E-Tender Notice and the Bidding Documents.
15. In Part-2 of the Bidding Document, Bid Rejection Criteria [BRC]/Bid Evaluation Criteria [BEC] were laid down. In Clause 2.0, 'Bid Evaluation Criteria', the documents required to be submitted by the bidders along with their bids were mentioned. As per the provisions contained in the Bidding Document, the Draw of Lots was carried out on 28.01.2022, notifying specifically that seventeen nos. of bidders were shortlisted only Page no. #11 of 15 provisionally and acceptance of their bids would be subject to scrutiny and fulfillment of the tender conditions. Though the petitioner was shortlisted in the said provisional priority list prepared after Draw of Lots on 28.01.2022, the petitioner till that point of time did not submit his credentials regarding meeting the qualification criteria laid down in the Bidding Document. It was only on 28.02.2022 the petitioner submitted that experience certificate for meeting the technical criteria laid down in Clause 2.1 and the Annual Financial Turnover Certificate from the Chartered Accountant to meet the financial criteria laid down in Clause 2.2 of the Bidding Document.
16. The Bid Evaluation Committee scrutinized the bid of the first seventeen bidders as per the provisional priority list to examine whether they fulfill the terms and conditions of the Bidding Document. Upon techno- commercial evaluation of the first seventeen provisionally selected bidders, fourteen nos. of bids from the first priority list of seventeen bidders were found to be techno-commercially acceptable. The remaining three bids were rejected as per a Final Technical Scrutiny Committee Report dated 16.03.2022. In the Minutes uploaded on 17.03.2022 by the Bid Evaluation Committee, the reasons for rejection of the three bids were mentioned. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was mentioned that the petitioner did not submit the required technical and financial documents in support of his credentials and due to such deficiencies, the petitioner's bid could not be evaluated as per BEC/BRC resulting in rejection.
17. After the petitioner submitted the work experience certificate and the Annual Financial Turnover Certificate on 28.02.2022 for meeting the technical criteria and financial criteria respectively, the petitioner was informed by the respondent Oil India Limited by an Office Letter dated 09.03.2022 to the effect that the petitioner did not submit either the required technical experience credentials or the financial documents for evaluation of his bid as per the Bidding Document and therefore his bid was rejected due to such deficiency.
Page no. #12 of 15
18. In its counter, the respondent Oil India Limited had already stated that the letters of award to the successful bidders for hiring of thirty-four nos. of busses for its operational uses were issued in the year 2022 itself and the successful bidders were running their busses as per the Letters of Award issued to them. The petitioner has not challenged those Letters of Award. The learned counsel for the respondent Oil India Limited has submitted that more than three years out of the four years period is already over and the contract period of four years is likely to be over shortly.
19. It can be noticed from Clause 4.0 [vii] of the IFB/E-Tender that a bidder has to submit the technical bid through electronic form in the OIL's E- Tender portal within the bid closing date and time stipulated in the E- Tender. The technical bid should be submitted as per Scope of Work and technical specifications along with all technical documents related to tender and uploaded under 'Technical Attachment' Tab only. Clause 5.2 of the Instruction to Bidders [ITB] of the Bidding Document had mentioned the documents which were required to be uploaded by a bidder along with the bidding document in the OIL's e-Tender portal. The documents which could establish the bidder's eligibility and qualification. In Clause 11.1.4 of the IFB contained a mandate that 'Any Bid, which is incomplete, ambiguous, or not in compliance with the Bidding process shall be rejected'.
20. It is the case of the respondent Oil India Limited that when the bids of the seventeen provisionally shortlisted bidders were taken up for scrutiny, the Technical Scrutiny Committee found three bids of the provisionally selected candidates figuring at Serial no. 10, 11 and 17 as non-responsive. Apart from the petitioner's bid, the bids of two other bidders from the list of first seventeen provisionally selected bidders were rejected.
21. In the Letter dated 28.02.2022, the petitioner had represented that the mistake in non uploading the work experience certificate and the Annual Financial Turnover Certificate had occurred due to network problem and the same was beyond his control.
Page no. #13 of 15
22. In this connection it is apposite to refer to the following observations made in the case of West Bengal. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., [2001] 2 SCC 451,:-
23. The mistakes/errors in question, it is stated, are unintentional and occurred due to the fault of computer termed as "a repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure". It is difficult to accept this contention. A mistake may be unilateral or mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it ceases to be a mistake. Here the mistakes may be unintentional but it was not beyond the control of Respondents 1 to 4 to correct the same before submission of the bid. Had they been vigilant in checking the bid documents before their submission, the mistakes would have been avoided. Further, correction of such mistakes after one-and-a-half months of opening of the bids will also be violative of clauses 24.1, 24.3 and 29.1 of the ITB.
23. It has already been noticed that in response to the IFB/E-Tender, a total of 301 bids were received online in the OIL's, e-Procurement portal. The plea put forward by the petitioner regarding network problem in uploading the work experience certificate and the Annual Financial Turnover Certificate at the time of submission of the bid online is not acceptable in the face of the fact that no such difficulty was faced by the other participant bidders and such a huge number of bids were uploaded online without any difficulty on or before the bid closing date and time. After elapse of sufficient time subsequent to opening of the bids on 11.01.2022, the petitioner realised his mistake that he did not upload the work experience certificate and the Annual Financial Turnover Certificate at the time of submission of the bid online and submitted those documents only on 28.02.2022.
24. From the above fact situation, it emerges that the petitioner was lackadaisical in his approach. When in the terms and conditions of the IFB/E-Tender and the Bidding Document it was made clear that the work Page no. #14 of 15 experience certificate and Annual Financial Turnover Certificate were to be submitted by a bidder as the same were essential to establish the credentials of the bidder that he fulfill the technical criteria and the financial criteria, no benefit in the form of any kind of relaxation can be extended to the petitioner for acceptance of his bid as the Technical Scrutiny Committee had scrutinized the bids strictly as per the terms and conditions laid down in the IFB/E-Tender and the Bidding Document.
25. In Banshidhar Construction Private Limited vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others, [2024] 10 SCC 273, one of the questions which has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is whether the respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited [BCCL] was justified in accepting the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-company and declaring it to be the successful bidder. The respondent BCCL floated a tender by a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] for a project. The respondent no. 8-company did not submit the scanned copies of its audited Annual Returns for the last three financial years, at the time of submitting/uploading the bid documents, before the last date fixed i.e. 01.12.2023 and the same were submitted on 17.04.2024 only when a clarification was sought from the respondent no. 8-company, after the technical bids were open on 04.12.2023. The documents outlined in Clause 10 of the Bidding Document was for substantiating the financial capacity of the bidders and the bidders were required to furnish the same at the time of submitting/uploading the bid documents. The Hon'ble Court has held that the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-company deserve to be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance of Clause 10 of the NIT. Acceptance of the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-company though submitted in utter non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Clause 10 of the NIT, and subsequently calling upon the respondent no. 8-company to furnish the shortfall of documents after the opening of technical bids of the bidders has been held to be totally arbitrary and legal.
26. In respect of evaluation of bids and award of contract, there is no question of equity and natural justice. When it was the petitioner who had omitted Page no. #15 of 15 to submit the essential documents with his bid submitted online, no benefit can be extended to him in the afore-stated facts and circumstances. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons stated, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to cost.
Simanta Digitally signed by Simanta Das DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=783384, l=Bongaigaon, st=Assam, street=TownAbhayapuri, Ward No4 Tengnamari , Bongaigaon, Bongaigaon Assam India 783384, title=8727, JUDGE 2.5.4.20=caa9a1c0be943e0740ca5dfbbfb8695db6814b4620 Das 2926df0aea3036caed4e3c, serialNumber=d950a33227bd4a5ce185958e9d34bdfd7c09a 2ca0a1f463628d94fa581ffcb03, [email protected], cn=Simanta Das Date: 2026.02.26 12:02:18 +05'30' Comparing Assistant