AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Suffice it to mention that pleadings have been exchanged.
As per the facts projected, a Notice Inviting Tender was floated by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department on 06.02.2026, in which the petitioner, along with two other bidders had participated. It is also the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, he had to approach this Court on the aspect of not granting of Site Visiting Certificate, which was resolved by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted the bid and claims to have done by following all the requirements. However, by the impugned minutes of meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 09.03.2026, the petitioner's bid has been held to be disqualified. Such disqualification is on the ground that in the document giving authority to seek the Reference Certificate was not signed by the petitioner in the proper place. It is this action which has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.
It may however be mentioned that when the writ petition was moved and an interim order was prayed for, the said interim order was declined, on amongst others, the ground that the successful bidders were not arrayed as parties. The petitioner had accordingly filed the impleadment application, adding the successful bidder as party respondent and thereafter, filed amended cause title.
I have heard Shri S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. DS Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department and Shri NR Surana, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. As noted above, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Shri Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that the authority letter was indeed submitted by the petitioner which also contain a signature. The only dispute is with regard to the place where the signature should have been given. He has submitted that such discrepancy is trivial in nature which could have been overlooked. He has submitted that in the alternative, the petitioner could have been given an opportunity to rectify the same. He has submitted that in any case, the Certificate is not mandatory in nature that will not go to the root of the matter and it is an ancillary requirement. He has also submitted that the decision to disqualify the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the action which has adverse civil consequences. He has also submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 11.03.2026 which was not acted upon.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors. reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 and the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 8 are pressed into service which read as follows:
“6.It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank the clause no. 6 of the tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said non- compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories-those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in GJ Fernandez v. State of Karnataka 7 Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 488 a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 489 but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the Court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs.
8.In the present case the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on its own branch must be treated as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the condition and the Tender Committee took the abundant caution by a further verification from the bank. In this situation it is not correct to hold that the Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6, specially when it was in its interest of not to reject the said bid which was the highest. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 filed before the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the present is a fit case for interference and the process may be directed to be re-done by declaring the bid of the petitioner to be technically responsive.
Per contra, Ms. Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has justified the action taken by the Evaluation Committee in the meeting held on 09.03.2026. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the tender document which pertains to issue involved. She has submitted that under Clause 3(VI)(f), there is a requirement to furnish an authority to seek reference from the banker of the bidder regarding his financial soundness. She has submitted that though a letter in the format was indeed submitted with the bid document, the same was not signed. She has also submitted that the signature of the petitioner appearing on the foot of the document is not in accordance with the requirement of the tender but appears to be in terms of Section 3(G)(ix) which requires a tenderer to put his signature on each and every page of the tender document. She has submitted that in this regard, adequate pleadings have been made in the affidavit-in-opposition by the Department on 29.07.2026. Specific reference has been made to the averments made in paragraph 5, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“5.That, the answering deponent denies the statements made in para 7 of the writ petition and begs to submit that upon technical evaluation of the tender documents by Bid Evaluation Committee, two bidder viz. Mr. Ashok Kr. Bajaj and M/S Asom Infra Tech were found to be technically responsive and qualified while one bidder Sri Sanjib Bhattacharyee, the petitioner was declared disqualified citing the reason " Authority seek Reference Certificate not signed by the bidder in proper place". It was observed by the Bid Evaluation Committee that the petitioner/bidder had affixed his initials at the bottom of the mandatory documents titled "Authority to seek Reference Certificate" which was the mandatory signature as is required to be made in each and every page of the technical Bid in compliance to the terms and conditions of the Bid Documents. But the certificate was not duly signed at the designated place specified for Bidder's signature as required under clauses 22(1) of Bid Documents. The Authority to Seek Reference Certificate" forms a mandatory part of technical Bid and signature of the petitioner was missing at specific place.”
Ms. Neog, learned Standing Counsel of the Department accordingly submits that the present case is devoid of merits and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.
Shri Surana, learned counsel has entered appearance for the newly impleaded respondent no. 6 and has informed that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 06.02.2026. He has fairly submitted that since the decision making process can only be examined by this Court, the justification would be given by the authorities which have already been done, which he endorses the same. He has however hastened to add that the formal work order has been issued on 07.05.2026 which however has not been put to challenge. He has also informed that the tenure of the work order is of one year and the respondent no.6 has already undertaken the work and continuing for the last three months.
Shri Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed a reply affidavit on 05.08.2026. He has also submitted that since there were only two other bidders, giving him an opportunity would not have opened a flood gate.
The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.
As noted above, the controversy is on the aspect of rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. The impugned minutes of meeting dated 09.03.2026 has recorded the reason of such rejection in the following manner:
Pkg No | Name of Scheme / work | NIT/ Package amount (Rs. In Lakh) | Name of Bidder / Firm | Whether qualified / Disqualified in Tech Bid | Remarks |
| 1 | Flood Mitigation Project in Patacharkuchi area through main canal of Kaldiya Flow Irrigation Scheme under State Disaster Mitigation Fund (SDMF) for the year 2023-24 under Tihu Division (Irrigation) Tihu | 1632.64714 | Ashok Kumar Bajaj | Qualified | |
| Qualified | |||||
| disqualified | |||||
| Authority to seek Reference certificate not signed by the bidder in proper place | |||||
To appreciate the rival contentions and also the reasons assigned, it would be necessary to look into the requirement of furnishing such an authority letter which is found in Section (3)VI(f), which reads as follows:
“f. Authority to seek references from the banker of the bidder to obtain references or seek Information directly from the banker from which the bidder has procured the financially sound/satisfactory certificate in specified format under Section-5 as part of the evaluation process.”
The purpose of such a document is to give an authority to the Department to seek reference from the banker of the bidder regarding his financial soundness. The requirement of such a document cannot be said to be non-essential as it involves the financial soundness of the bidder which is one of the foremost requirements to assess the technical responsiveness.
The specific contention of the petitioner is that the document was indeed furnished in which, however, the signature was not put at the prescribed place but at the foot of the document. A perusal of the document which has been enclosed to the writ petition, would however disclose that the said document indeed contains signature of the petitioner. It is therefore required to see as to whether the decision taken by the Bid Evaluation Committee is in accordance with law or is arbitrary and unreasonable. The specific stand of the Department is that the signature appearing on the foot of the document will not fulfill the requirement of furnishing an authority letter. A careful perusal of the authority letter would indicate that there is a space specifically prescribed for the bidder to put his signature in which the name of the bidder in block letter has also been written. The signature appearing on the foot of the document however clearly appears to be in terms of the requirement of the tender document in Section 3(G)(ix) which requires each and every page of the document to be signed. For ready reference, the said requirement is extracted hereinbelow:
“ix) Each and every page of the technical bid shall be signed by the bidder or his/her authorized representative.”
The Department in its affidavit-in-opposition, as mentioned above, has clearly explained the aforesaid position.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the action taken by the Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 09.03.2026 appears to be in accordance with law and cannot be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable. As regards the aspect that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is unable to accept such a submission inasmuch as, the role and jurisdiction to evaluate the bid has to be done strictly in terms of the bid document which appears to have been done and in doing so, there may not be any requirement to give opportunity at each stage to the bidders, more so, when the decision appears to be in consonance with the requirement.
The reliance upon the case of Poddar Steel (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court would not come to the aid of the petitioner inasmuch as in the said case, the reason or the rejection of the bid was trivial wherein, instead of depositing a cheque of the State Bank of India, a cheque of the United Bank of India was deposited which was rejected by the authorities and ultimately interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The facts of the present case are wholly different and the citation relied upon would not help the petitioner.
In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. This Court has also taken note of the aspect that the formal work order dated 07.05.2026 is also not the subject matter of challenge.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.