AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of all the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
PREFACE:
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the communication dated 15.07.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Works) to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department conveying the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam, the approval of the Government in debarring the Petitioner from participating in any ongoing or future tenders under the Public Works Roads Department for a period of 1 (one) year w.e.f. the date of issuance of the order dated 20.06.2026 from the Office of the Chief Engineer PWD (NH Works), Assam. The Petitioner has also assailed the decision of the Tender Committee Meeting dated 05.08.2026, wherein it was decided to cancel the L1 bid of the Petitioner in respect to two works on the basis of the communication dated 15.07.2026.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner herein is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner claims to be a Government registered civil contractor under various Departments of the State Government including the various branches of the Public Works Department.
On 20.06.2026, the Chief Engineer PWD (NH Works), Assam passed an order thereby debarring the Petitioner from participating in any ongoing or future tenders under the PWD (NH Works) for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of issuance of the said order.
The Petitioner being aggrieved filed a writ petition challenging the said order dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works). The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3398/2026.
It is further relevant to take note of that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Deputy Secretary (Works) to the Government of Assam, Public Works Roads Department also issued a communication dated 15.07.2026 to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam informing inter alia that in view of the communication dated 20.06.2026, the Petitioner company has been debarred from participating in any ongoing or future tenders under the Public Works Roads Department, Assam for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of issuance of the order dated 20.06.2026.
It is also relevant to take note of that the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works) also issued an Office Order on 01.08.2026 whereby the registration of the Petitioner bearing Registration No. REG-CON/PWD NH/2024/3890362 was suspended on the ground of unsatisfactory works.
The writ petition being WP(C) No.3398/2026 was taken up for consideration on 03.08.2026. In the said writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioner whereby the communication dated 01.08.2026 was also brought on record.
The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 03.08.2026 set aside the order dated 20.06.2026 as well as the Office Order dated 01.08.2026 both issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works). Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgment and order dated 03.08.2026 being relevant are reproduced herein under:
“7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that instead of going into the inter-se merits of the respective parties wherein such scope is also limited, it appears that in the decision making process itself, there is a violation of the prescribed norms. It is not in dispute that the Ministry’s guidelines would be applicable as per the communication mentioned above which amongst others, requires approval of the Director General (RD) and SS. As observed above, there is nothing on record to show that such approval was indeed taken from the said authority.
8.In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action is not sustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The respondent would, however, be at liberty to take appropriate action by strictly following the law. While doing so, the prescription laid down that such blacklisting can be for a period till rectification is done, as provided in Sl. No. 5, would also have to be taken into consideration.
9.At this stage, Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, a communication dated 01.08.2026 has been issued whereby in terms of the blacklisting order, the registration of the petitioner has been suspended and this fact has been brought on record by way of an additional-affidavit.
10.Though Shri Gogoi, learned Addl. A.G. has raised the issue that such order may give rise to a fresh cause of action, this Court is of the opinion that the office order dated 01.08.2026 as enclosed in the additional-affidavit filed on 03.08.2026 is only a consequence of the principal order which has already been interfered with. This Court is also of the opinion that in a writ proceeding, connected facts can be brought on record by way of an additional-affidavit which would be treated to be a part of the pleadings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri-La Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi Vs. State of Madras and Anr., reported in AIR 1965 SC 1578. In view of the above, the consequential order dated 01.08.2026 also stands set aside.”
It is further relevant to take note of that the said judgment and order was pronounced in open Court in presence of the learned Additional Advocate General of Assam.
Immediately upon pronouncement of the said judgment, the Petitioner issued communications dated 03.08.2026 to the various officials in the different Branches of the PWD including the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam stating inter alia that the evaluation of the bids so submitted by the Petitioner in connection with tenders bearing Tender ID No. 2026_PWD_51052_17 and Tender ID No. 2026_PWD_51052_10 be taken up subsequently so that the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2026 passed in WP(C) No.3398/2026 can be produced. In addition to that, it is also seen from a perusal of Page No. 64 of the writ petition that the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) on 04.08.2026 was duly informed as would be apparent from the seal of the office of the Chief Engineer PWD (Roads).
Subsequent thereto, on 05.08.2026, the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2026 passed in WP(C) No.3398/2026 was served upon the various authorities of the PWD including the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads).
It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 05.08.2026, the Petitioner came to learn that the Petitioner's bid submitted in respect to two contractual works wherein the Petitioner was the sole technically competent and lowest bidder were rejected on account of the communication dated 15.07.2026. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
The present writ petition was filed on 06.08.2026. When the matter was listed before this Court on 10.08.2026, this Court issued notice and sought for instructions from the PWD Department on two aspects. First, as to whether the communication dated 15.07.2026 was consequential to the order dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works) and secondly, as to whether the impugned communication dated 15.07.2026 was preceded by any Show Cause Notice.
It is relevant to take note of that two additional affidavits were filed by the Petitioner on 10.08.2026 bringing to the notice of this Court that in respect to the works wherein the Petitioner's bids were cancelled, fresh tender notices have been issued.
Today, when the present writ petition is being taken up for final disposal, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the communication dated 15.07.2026 impugned in the instant proceedings is consequential to the order dated 20.06.2026. Further to that, during the course of the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General has also produced the Minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting for the Combined Evaluation of the Road Safety Improvement Works on SH and MDRs under ASRIP. The said Minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.
From a perusal of the said Minutes, it is apparent that in respect to the Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia though the Petitioner was the sole technically competent and lowest bidder, the said bids were rejected solely on the ground of the communication dated 15.07.2026.
In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, this Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION:
From a perusal of the materials on record, it is apparent that the impugned communication dated 15.07.2026 was issued based upon the order passed on 20.06.2026 by the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works) whereby the Petitioner was debarred for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of issuance of the said order. This aspect was also informed to this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General Assam during the course of the hearing. It is the opinion of this Court that if the order dated 20.06.2026 has already been set aside, the consequential communication dated 15.07.2026 cannot also be sustained.
This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 04.08.2026. In respect to the Package No.ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No.ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia, the Petitioner was the sole technically competent and lowest bidder. However, the Petitioner’s bids were rejected solely on the basis of the communication dated 15.07.2026. This was done so in spite of having due knowledge that the said order dated 20.06.2026 was set aside by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 03.08.2026 passed in WP(C) No.3398/2026. Under such circumstances, the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia solely on the ground of the impugned communication dated 15.07.2026 cannot be sustained in law. Under such circumstances, as the reasons for rejection of the Petitioner’s bid in respect to the two packages referred to hereinabove cannot be sustained in law, there would be a requirement for the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner’s bids in respect to the said packages afresh.
This Court also takes note of the additional affidavits which were filed by the Petitioner whereby tender notices have been issued in respect to the works wherein the Petitioner's bids have been rejected vide the Minutes of the Meeting held on 04.08.2026. It is relevant to take note of that the last date for submission of the bids is 07.09.2026. It is the opinion of this Court that upon reconsideration of the Petitioner’s bid in respect to the two packages wherein the Petitioner was the sole technically competent and lowest bidder and it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to be awarded the contracts in respect to the two packages, there would be no necessity for going ahead with the said tender process.
CONCLUSION:
Taking into account above, the present writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
The impugned communication dated 15.07.2026 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Works) to the Government of Assam, Public Works Roads Department is set aside and quashed.
The rejection of the Petitioner's bid in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia as recorded in the Minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting held on 04.08.2026 solely on the basis of the impugned communication dated 15.07.2026 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Minutes of the Tender Committee meeting insofar as the decision in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia are set aside and quashed.
This Court directs the Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Tender Committee to consider the bids so submitted by the Petitioner in respect to the Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia afresh without taking into consideration the impugned communication dated 15.07.2026.
The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the said exercise would be carried out within a period of 7 (seven) days from today. In view of the categorical submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the said exercise of consideration of the Petitioner's bids in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia would be carried out within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the fresh tender notices which have been enclosed in the additional affidavits.
It is however observed that in the circumstance, it is the opinion of the Respondents to grant the contracts in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia to the Petitioner, the issuance of the Request for Bids for Small Works insofar as the Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia shall be rendered nugatory.
It is clarified that this Court has not interfered with the Minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting dated 04.08.2026 in respect to the other packages wherein the Petitioner is not involved. It is further clarified that based upon the decision upon the consideration of the bids of the Petitioner in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia, as directed above, the Respondent Authorities shall consider as regards the necessity to proceed with the Request for Bids for Small Works by keeping in mind the directions passed in Clause (v) of the instant paragraph.
The Court Master of this Court shall provide a photocopy of the Minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting dated 04.08.2026 which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X” to the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
This Court observes that in the circumstance, the Petitioner’s bids in respect to Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-3 in the District of Golaghat and Package No. ASRIP/A/RS-6 in the District of Tinsukia are rejected after due consideration as directed above, the Petitioner is granted liberty to again approach this Court.