M/S Ashirvad Associates And Anr vs The Dergaon Municipal Board And 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010213312026

2026:GAU-AS:15846
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5284/2026
M/S ASHIRVAD ASSOCIATES AND ANR
1ST FLOOR, SACRED HEART MANSION, CHANDMARI COLONY,
GUWAHATI ASSAM, PIN 781003, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI
RAM AVTAR MAHESWARI
2: SRI RAM AVTAR MAHESWARI
PROPRIETOR OF M/S ASHIRVAD ASSOCIATES
SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN MAHESWARI
RESIDENT OF KAMALDEEP APARTMENT
SHIV MANDIR LANE
G S ROAD P.O. ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN
78100
VERSUS
THE DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON PHG PATH, WARD NO 7, DERGAON,
DISTRICT GOLAGHAT, ASSAM PIN 785614
2:THE CHAIRPERSON
DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD
PHG PATH WARD NO 7
DERGAON
DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785614
3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD
PHG PATH WARD NO 7 DERGAON DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN
785614
4:THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE
DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD
PHG PATH WARD NO 7 DERGAON DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN
785614. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON

Page No.# 2/15
DERGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD
5:SRI BODON TAMULY
SON OF LATE ARUN TAMULY
RESIDENT OF OLD AMULAPATTY
WARD NO 12 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT
DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785621
6:SRI TUTU UPADHAYA
SON OF LATE GANGA PRASAD SHARMA
RESIDENT OF DHANSIRIPAR
P.O HALMIRA P.S GOLAGHAT
DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 78562
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BARUAH, MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. R A PRAMANIK,MR.
H NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J K GOSWAMI (R1-R4), MS. A T SUMI (R1-R4),C SAIKIA
(R1-R4),MR D J BORO (R1-R4)

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

For the Petitioners: Mr. A. K. Baruah, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. K. Goswami, Advocate.
Date on which the Judgment is
Reserved : 14.10.2026.

Date of the pronouncement of
Judgment : 16.10.2026
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part of the
Judgment : NA.

Page No.# 3/15
Whether the full Judgment has
been pronounced : Yes.


J UDGMENT & O RDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K.
Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition assails the technical evaluation of bids submitted
pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 29.08.2026, issued by the Dergaon
Municipal Board for the work of "Extension of Distribution of Pipe Network with
HDPE pipes in Ward Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Dergaon Municipal Board under
Dergaon Town Water Supply Scheme under the 15th Finance Commission Tied
Grant for Financial Year 2025–2026 (2nd Instalment)." The estimated value of
the work is ₹1,12,02,637/-, with a stipulated completion period of 90 days.
3. The Tender Evaluation Committee rejected the petitioner's technical bid in
its meeting held on 15.09.2026, whereas two other bidders were declared
technically qualified.
4. The petitioner's principal grievance is that Clause 4.7 of the tender
document, which prescribes the method of determining a bidder's available bid
capacity, has not been applied uniformly. According to the petitioner, the value
of “ N” was incorrectly taken as 0.5 years when calculating the bid capacity of
the two successful bidders, although the stipulated completion period was 90
days. It is contended that had the formula been correctly applied, the available
bid capacity of the successful bidders would not have exceeded the total bid
value, and they would not have qualified.

Page No.# 4/15
5. The respondents contend that the evaluation was undertaken in
accordance with the tender conditions. They submit that the petitioner’s bid
suffered from deficiencies, including the absence of requisite certification of the
bid capacity statement, an incomplete site inspection document, and non-
submission of GST returns for the preceding six months; therefore, the
petitioner cannot raise the application of wrong calculation as a concern. As
regards the successful bidders, the respondents explain that the Executive
Engineer certified their bid capacity statements and that the Committee relied
on such certification without independently examining the correctness of the
calculation.
6. Before proceeding further, let this Court take note of certain important
aspects of the bid document.
Section-I of the bid document is the introduction to the bidder, which consists of
36 clauses.
Clause 4. O, deals with the qualification of the bidder. Clause 4.7 prescribes that
bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their
available bid capacity exceeds the total bid value.
It further provides a formula for calculation of bid capacity. The bid capacity is
assessed by multiplying the maximum value of civil engineering work executed
(taking into account the completed as well as work in progress) in any one year
during the last three years, ( identified as “A” ) by number of years prescribed,
for the completion of the work for which the bid is invited ( identified as “N” ),
and then again multiplied by 2 and thereafter, deduction of net value of existing
commitments and ongoing works to be completed during next two years
( identified as “B” ). Thus, the bid capacity available is assessed by the formula
( A x N x 2 - B ). Such statement is to be countersigned by the Engineer not

Page No.# 5/15
below the rank of Executive Engineer.
7. Section-II deals with qualification information and provides that the bidder
shall fill in such information as prescribed in the format, which will be used for
post-qualification as provided in Clause-4.O of the Instructions to Bidders.
8. Clause-7.O deals with site visit. Clause-7.2 requires the intending bidder to
inspect the site, accompanied by the bidder's official, and submit a site
inspection report duly signed by the bidder/authorized representative, along
with Geotagged photographs of the site, as part of the bid documents.
9. As regards the requirement of GST return, the same is available in the
notice inviting e-Tender dated 29.08.2026, which provides that the tender must
be accompanied by a copy of valid registration under PHE, GST Registration with
GST Returns for the last six months, PAN Cards, experience on similar in nature,
etc.; however, such requirement is not available in the bid document/tender
document.
10. The record produced before this Court discloses an admitted position that
the value of 'N' adopted in calculating the available bid capacity of the two
successful bidders was incorrect. It is also the admitted position, as emerges
from the record, that the application of the correct value might have resulted in
their failure to satisfy the prescribed bid capacity requirement.
11. Therefore, the first question before this Court is whether the qualification
of those bidders can nevertheless be sustained on the ground that their
statement had been certified by the Executive Engineer and that the petitioner
has no right to raise such objection when his bid is disqualified for other reasons
too.
12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to record here that the scope of

Page No.# 6/15
judicial review in matters relating to public tenders is well settled. The Court
does not sit in appeal over the technical evaluation undertaken by the tendering
authority. The Court does not ordinarily substitute its own interpretation of the
tender conditions for that of the authority which framed them. The Court is
concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, and not
with undertaking a fresh evaluation of the technical merits of the competing
bids.
13. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India , reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the
Supreme Court explained that judicial review concerns the manner in which a
decision is taken and is available on grounds recognized in administrative law,
including illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
14. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors , reported in (2007) 14
SCC 517 , the Supreme Court emphasized that interference in tender matters is
warranted where the decision is mala fide, intended to favor someone, or so
arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with law could have reached it, having regard also to the effect on
public interest.
15. The Supreme Court has further held in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., and Anr., reported in (2016) 16 SCC
818 , that the authority that authored the tender document is ordinarily the best
person to understand and interpret its requirements. The Court would not
interfere merely because another interpretation is possible.
16. This principle, however, does not confer upon the tendering authority
unrestricted discretion to depart from the conditions it prescribed. The
interpretation adopted must be one which the language of the tender can
reasonably bear and must not be arbitrary or perverse.

Page No.# 7/15
17. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S Mickey Traders v.
M/S LRY Labor Contractor, reported in 2026 INSC 1025 reiterates this
principle. The Supreme Court held that an authority's interpretation of its own
tender document is ordinarily entitled to primacy, provided that the
interpretation is supported by the document's language and is not unfair,
perverse, or arbitrary.
The Court also reaffirmed the distinction between essential eligibility conditions
and conditions that are merely ancillary or subsidiary to the tender's principal
object. The judgment makes it clear that the principle of “ limited scope of
judicial review” cannot be invoked to protect an interpretation that contradicts
the tender conditions or results in an arbitrary application of eligibility criteria.
18. The principle assumes further significance having regard to the nature of
the work involved in the present case. The tender relates to the extension of a
public water distribution network, which is intended to serve the needs of the
residents of the concerned wards. The evaluation of bids in such a matter
cannot be viewed merely as a contest between competing contractors. The
primary consideration is that the public work should be entrusted to a bidder
who satisfies the conditions prescribed in the tender process and demonstrates
the capacity to execute the work within the stipulated period.
19. Clause 4.7 has a material bearing on this objective. By prescribing a
method for determining available bid capacity and requiring that it exceed the
total bid value, the tender seeks to assess whether the bidder has the requisite
capacity, having regard to the value of works undertaken by the bidder and the
bidder's existing commitments.
It is an important safeguard against entrusting the work to a bidder whose
existing commitments and available capacity may make timely execution

Page No.# 8/15
impossible.
20. An incorrect application of the formula prescribed under Clause 4.7, where
the error determines whether the bidder satisfies the eligibility criteria, cannot
be treated as a mere technical irregularity. If a bidder who does not satisfy the
prescribed criteria is declared qualified, the consequences may extend beyond
the rights of competing bidders and affect the execution of the public work
itself. The requirement of strict adherence to the prescribed formula must be
understood in the context of both fairness in the tender process and public
interest in securing timely and effective execution of the work.
21. This Court is not expressing any opinion that either of the successful
bidder is incapable of executing the work. The Court's concern arises from the
tender conditions themselves. Eligibility must be determined by the prescribed
criteria and not by an erroneous calculation. Where the calculation is admitted
to be incorrect, and its correction would alter the determination of eligibility, the
defect is material and calls for consideration in accordance with the tender
document. Public interest is served not by selecting a particular bidder, but by
ensuring that the bidder ultimately selected satisfies the conditions laid down
for all participants.
22. In the present case, after perusal of the bid document of both the
successful bidder, what is seen is that the value of “ N ” is treated as 5.0, where
as in the case of the petitioner it is treated as 2.5.
23. In the tender condition the value of “ N” is referable to one year. The
th
tender completion period is 90 days, which is 1/4 of a year. Accordingly, the
value of “ N ” under Clause 4.7 shall be 2.5. Thereafter, such value can be 5.0,
only when the tender completion period is 180 days.

Page No.# 9/15
24. Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Board,
also does not dispute this calculation. What the learned Counsel explains is that
the Executive Engineer certified the bid capacity statements of the successful
bidders and therefore, the Bid Evaluation Committee does not independently
scrutinise it.
25. Such procedure adopted neither cures such defect nor does it answer the
petitioner’s grievance.
The requirement of certification and the correctness of the calculation are
distinct matters. Certification may establish that the statement was
authenticated by competent authority, but it cannot make an incorrect
calculation correct. Nor can the responsibility of the Tender Evaluation
Committee to determine the eligibility in accordance with the tender conditions
be waived merely because the statement bears the signature of an Engineer.
26. The error in the present case is not an inconsequential computational
mistake. On the admitted position, applying the prescribed formula correctly
might have affected the eligibility of the two successful bidders. The error thus
goes to the root of the decision to declare them technically qualified. The
Committee’s explanation that it relied on the certification without examining the
calculation does not provide a legally sustainable basis for accepting bids that,
on the correct application of Clause 4.7, would fail to satisfy the prescribed
requirement.
27. The principle of equal treatment is fundamental to a fair tender process. The
State and its instrumentalities must act fairly and consistently in public
procurement. A condition enforced against one bidder cannot be ignored for
another similarly situated bidder without a rational basis consistent with the
tender document.

Page No.# 10/15
28. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India ,
reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 , the Supreme Court emphasized that a public
authority cannot act arbitrarily in awarding contracts and must adhere to the
standards it has laid down. The same principle informs the requirement that all
bidders be evaluated on the basis of conditions notified in advance.
29. The principle has been reiterated in Mickey Traders (supra) where the
Supreme Court observed that a condition cannot be mandatory in the abstract
and directory only in its application to a favored bidder. Though the facts of that
case concerned an experience criterion, the principle is equally relevant to the
present controversy. Where a tender prescribes an eligibility requirement, and
the authority applies it in a manner that results in a bidder being declared
qualified despite failing to satisfy that requirement, the decision cannot be
insulated from judicial review merely because it is described as a matter of
technical evaluation.
30. Therefore, the petitioner’s challenge is not founded on a mere disagreement
with the Committee's technical opinion; it is founded on an admitted error in
applying the prescribed formula, which directly affected the eligibility of the
successful bidders.
Consequently, the decision to qualify those bidders on the basis of an incorrect
calculation is vitiated by an arbitrary application of the tender conditions.
31. The next question concerns the other tender requirements, the respondents
relied upon to justify rejecting the petitioner’s bid.
32. The petitioner contended that Clause 4.0 of the Instructions to Bidders, read
with Section II titled "Qualification Information," sets out the substantive
qualification requirements, which do not prescribe the submission of GST
returns and deficiencies under Clause 7.0. However, the respondents relied on
the non-submission of GST returns and deficiencies under Clause 7.0 in relation

Page No.# 11/15
to the site inspection are not relatable qualification of the bidder and are curable
defects.
33. Clause 4.0 expressly deals with bidder qualification and includes requirements
concerning legal status, financial standing, experience, and available bid
capacity.
Section II, headed "Qualification Information," states that the information
furnished therewith will be used for qualification purposes as provided under
Clause 4.0. It contains forms relating, inter alia, to experience, existing
commitments, ongoing works, bid capacity, and financial resources. This
structure helps distinguish substantive qualification criteria from other
requirements elsewhere in the tender document.
34. Clause 7.0, on the other hand, deals with site inspection. Clause 7.2 requires
intending bidders to inspect the site and submit a site inspection report duly
signed by the bidder or authorized representative, together with geotagged
photographs, as part of the bid document.
35. The use of the word "shall" makes compliance with the requirement obligatory.
Nevertheless, whether a particular deficiency in the site inspection document
necessarily entails the rejection of a bid must be determined from the language
and object of the condition, read with other provisions of the tender document.
The mere placement of a requirement outside Clause 4.0 does not make it
optional; equally, its inclusion among the bid documents does not, without
further examination, establish that every such deficiency constitutes a failure to
satisfy an essential qualification criterion.
36. The same approach must be adopted in relation to the requirement to submit
GST returns. The requirement of GST returns is reflected only in the Short
Notice Inviting Tender; however, the bid document contains no such
prescription, whoever, it uses the word “shall submit along with bids”.

Page No.# 12/15
37. In Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works , reported in
( 1991) 3 SCC 273, the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between
essential conditions of eligibility and conditions which are ancillary or subsidiary
to the main object sought to be achieved. Whether a particular requirement falls
in one category or the other depends upon the language, object, and context of
the tender condition.
The decision does not authorize a tendering authority to disregard an essential
condition, nor does it require treating every procedural or documentary
irregularity as fatal, regardless of its nature and purpose.
The authority must determine the character and consequence of the condition
in the context of the tender document and apply its conclusion uniformly.
38. It is well settled that the terms of a tender document must be given their due
meaning and cannot be treated as redundant or superfluous, and that non-
compliance with an essential condition cannot be condoned by the tendering
authority. These principles, read together with Afcons and Mickey Traders
(supra), indicate that the interpretation of tender conditions should ordinarily be
left to the authority that framed them, but the interpretation and its application
remain subject to the requirements of legality, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.
39. In the present case, more particularly in the backdrop of the findings of this
Court on Clause 4.7, it would not be appropriate for this Court in the first
instance to pronounce conclusively upon the character and consequence of each
requirement relating to GST returns, site inspection, and other documentary
submissions without the Tender Evaluation Committee undertaking a fresh
evaluation on the basis of the original tender document.
The Committee is the authority entrusted with the evaluation and is best placed
to interpret the requirements it framed. It must, however, do so by reference to
the language and object of the relevant conditions and not by adopting an

Page No.# 13/15
interpretation designed to sustain an outcome already reached.
40. The fact that the petitioner’s bid was found deficient in certain respects does not
answer the challenge to the qualification of the successful bidders. The
petitioner cannot claim an automatic right to be declared technically qualified
merely because the successful bidders were wrongly qualified. Equally, a
deficiency in the petitioner’s bid cannot validate an erroneous application of
Clause 4.7 to successful bidders. The legality of rejecting the petitioner’s bid and
accepting other bids must be determined in accordance with the tender
conditions.
41. In the circumstances of the present case, the appropriate course is to require a
fresh technical evaluation of all the bids so that no bidder obtains an advantage
from an earlier erroneous application of the prescribed criteria under Clause 4.7.
42. This Court is conscious that interference in tender matters must be exercised
with restraint and that a public procurement process ought not to be delayed
unnecessarily. The present interference is rests on the admitted error in
applying the prescribed formula under Clause 4.7, which affected the eligibility
of the successful bidders. Not only, the error is material and verifiable from the
record but also directly affects the fairness of the evaluation. Therefore, the
limited intervention is necessary to ensure that the tender is evaluated in
accordance with the conditions notified to all participants.
43. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed, and the
following directions are issued:
I. The technical evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation
Committee pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 29.08.2026 is
set aside.
II. The matter is remitted to the competent authority for a fresh technical
evaluation commencing from the stage of technical bid evaluation in

Page No.# 14/15
respect of all participating bidders, strictly in accordance with the original
tender document.
III. In undertaking the fresh evaluation, the Tender Evaluation Committee
shall correctly apply the formula prescribed under Clause 4.7 and
determine the available bid capacity of each bidder on the basis of
relevant documents and the stipulated period of completion.
IV. The Committee shall also examine, by a reasoned interpretation of the
tender documents read as a whole, the requirements relating to the
submission of GST returns, site inspection under Clause 7.0, and other
conditions relied upon in the earlier evaluation, and determine whether
those requirements are mandatory and what consequences that follow
from non-compliance. The Committee shall record its reasons for the
interpretation adopted and shall apply the same standard uniformly to all
bidders.
V. The fresh evaluation shall be confined to the original tender conditions
and the documents submitted by the bidders in accordance with those
conditions.
VI. This order shall not be construed as a direction to declare the petitioner
or any other bidder technically qualified, or as a direction to award the
contract to any particular bidder. The Tender Evaluation Committee shall
determine eligibility strictly in accordance with the tender document and
law.
VII. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within two (2)
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be
furnished by the petitioner. The competent authority shall thereafter
proceed in accordance with the result of the fresh evaluation and the
applicable tender conditions.

Page No.# 15/15
VIII. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authority to go for
fresh tender, if a reasonable ground exists.
44. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant