Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed a writ petition by an unsuccessful bidder challenging the award of a Public Works Department contract for construction of a Circuit House at Udalguri. The Court declined to interfere with the tender outcome after the petitioner, ranked third in the financial bid, alleged cartelisation by the two lowest bidders on the basis that both enclosed the same photograph with their site-visit certificates. Holding that such a claim cannot rest on a common photograph without concrete material indicating any breach of the tender’s integrity commitment, the Bench said that treating the shared image as proof of collusion would be “far-fetched” and “in the realm of imagination”.

The writ petition arose from a challenge to the validity of a tender process floated by the Public Works Department for construction of a Circuit House on EPC mode. The petitioner participated in the tender and, upon financial evaluation, emerged as the third lowest bidder. Two other bidders were declared the lowest and second lowest bidders respectively.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

The petitioner alleged that the two competing bidders had violated the tender conditions by forming a cartel, contrary to the commitment clause contained in the Integrity Agreement forming part of the tender documents. The allegation was founded primarily on the assertion that the representatives of the two bidders had conducted a site visit on the same date and had submitted site inspection certificates supported by an identical photograph. According to the petitioner, this demonstrated collusion and an undisclosed agreement restricting competitiveness.

The respondents disputed these allegations, stating that the tender conditions only mandated a site visit and certification thereof, without any restriction on multiple bidders visiting the site on the same date or time. It was further stated that submission of photographs was not a requirement under the tender and that the Integrity Agreements were executed independently by each bidder. The Tender Committee found no breach, irregularity, or evidence of exchange of confidential information or coordination in bid pricing.

The Court examined the challenge based on the allegation of cartelisation and recorded that “the entire challenge projected by the petitioner is based on the ground that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had formed a cartel which is in violation of Article 2 (2) (b) of the NIT.”

With respect to the mandatory site visit requirement, the Court noted that “site visit which is mandatory in nature is required to be established which has been done by the respective parties by submission of a certificate.” It further recorded that “there is no requirement at all for enclosing any photographs to substantiate the same.”

Addressing the reliance placed on the common photograph, the Court observed that “even if the altered argument is taken into consideration that the two representatives of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to have featured in the common photograph, the same… cannot be construed to be any violation of the Integrity Commitment.” The Court stated that drawing an inference of cartelisation solely on that basis would be “far-fetched and would be in the realm of imagination.”

The Court also took note of the Department’s affidavit which stated that “there was no proof of exchange of confidential information, coordination in bid pricing or restriction of competiveness.” It recorded that there was no specific denial of this stand in the petitioner’s reply affidavit and that “all the five nos. of inferences are based on the photograph only.”

Regarding judicial review in tender matters, the Court recorded “Unless, any concrete materials can be demonstrated, this Court would be loath in interfering with matters pertaining to allotment of contracts. This Court has also taken into consideration that site visit by the prospective bidders was a mandatory requirement and there is no stipulation that such visit cannot be made on the same date or time by different bidders. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that only because the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to be bidders in various other contracts, a cartel can be presumed.”

Also Read: Compassionate Appointment Not Barred Due To Deceased Having Under Three Years’ Service Left; Gauhati High Court

The Court recorded that “no case for interference is made out and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated which otherwise also appears to have been passed on an incorrect submission made on behalf of the petitioner.”

It was “reminded of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors.” wherein a strong view was expressed in matters where stay orders relating to public works are obtained. However, the Court expressly stated that “this Court has restrained itself from taking recourse towards such direction. The records are handed over back to the learned Standing Counsel, PWD.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri R. Choudhury, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, APWD; Shri T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Borua, Advocate; Shri S.K. Poddar, Advocate

Case Title: M/s Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GAU-AS:419
Case Number: WP(C)/6333/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi