Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has set aside Clause-5 of the Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025 issued by the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). The Court declared the Corrigendum invalid for introducing arbitrary eligibility criteria changes during an ongoing tender process, affecting the procurement of desks and benches for schools under BTC.

The petitioner, Sudhang Kumar Brahma, proprietor of M/S J.T. Enterprise, challenged the Corrigendum issued by the BTC, which amended the eligibility criteria initially set forth in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 13.02.2025. The original NIT invited bids for supplying desks and benches worth up to Rs. 6.00 crores for BTC schools.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 5A | Purchase Tax Can Apply Even If Sale Is Exempt | Provision Is A Distinct Charging Section

According to the petitioner, Clause-5 of the original NIT required bidders to have previously executed at least one similar supply order amounting to 34% of the tender value (approximately Rs. 2.04 crores) and to possess an annual financial turnover of at least 67% of the tender value. This experience could include supplies made to any government entity.

However, on the last date for submission of bids, 10.03.2025, BTC issued a Corrigendum extending the submission deadline to 20.03.2025. Subsequently, another Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025 introduced significant changes to Clause-5. It mandated that bidders must have supplied similar materials worth at least Rs. 2.40 crores exclusively to the Government of BTC's Education Department during the financial years 2022-23, 2023-24, or 2024-25. Additionally, joint ventures were disallowed under the amended criteria.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. K.P. Pathak, contended that these changes were arbitrary and lacked objective justification. He argued that "the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played," asserting that the petitioner fulfilled the original eligibility criteria and that the abrupt changes unfairly excluded his bid. He further submitted that such restrictive conditions favoured particular bidders and relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 and Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171.

Opposing the petition, Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel for BTC, defended the changes, stating that they were intended to ensure procurement from financially capable suppliers who had a proven track record with BTC. He cited Supreme Court judgments such as Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 to argue that courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless proven arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.

Justice Michael Zothankhuma recorded that the State respondents failed to provide adequate justification for the sudden and significant increase in the eligibility threshold from Rs. 2.04 crores to Rs. 2.40 crores. The Court observed, "No attempt has been made to justify the said change, except by giving a very generalised explanation that the modified eligibility criteria were made to ensure the interest of the students, the end users and the public."

The Court held that the petitioner was eligible under the original criteria and that the enhancement of the eligibility criteria lacked a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring better quality supplies. The Court further observed, "There cannot be an arbitrary exercise of power by the State respondents only because it has the power to make the terms and conditions of a tender."

Regarding the restriction that past supplies must have been made only to the BTC Government, the Court found this requirement unjustifiable and discriminatory. It noted that BTC, though an autonomous administrative unit under the Sixth Schedule, operates within the State of Assam and many functions overlap between the BTC and the State Government. The Court recorded, "There can be no justifiable reason for restricting bidders to participate in the NIT, to only those who have made past supplies of similar materials only to the Government of BTC."

Also Read: Must Narrow Down Gaps For Effective Treatment Of Bio-Medical Waste | Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds New Gap Analysis Method Adopted By CPCB

The Court concluded that the change introduced through the Corrigendum was arbitrary, unreasonable, and not backed by any objective reasoning. The observations included: "When there is a change made to Clause-5 of the NIT by Clause-5 of the Corrigendum, justifications/reasons have to be provided by the State Government. The same is sadly lacking."

The Court set aside Clause-5 of the Corrigendum dated 14.03.2025, directing the State respondents to evaluate bids based on the eligibility criteria outlined in Clause-5 of the original NIT dated 13.02.2025. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. K.P. Pathak, Mr. B. Das, Mr. C. Paul

For the Respondents: Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel, BTC

Case Title: Sudhang Kumar Brahma v. The Bodoland Territorial Council and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:5890

Case Number: WP(C)/1615/2025

Bench: Justice Michael Zothankhuma

[Read/Download order]