Abu Sufian vs The State of Tripura and Ors.

Page 1 of 19



HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


WP(C) No.183 of 2025


Abu Sufian, Son of Abdul Malik, resident of Jubarajnagar, Kailashahar,
Unakoti, Tripura.
. ………..Petitioner.


V E R S U S

1. The State of Tripura (To be represented by) the Secretary, Public works
Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New
Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN-799010.

2. The Secretary, Public works Department, Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital
Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Water Resource),
Government of Tripura, O/o the Chief Engineer, PWD (WR),
Government of Tripura, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006.

4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.VI, Office of the
Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division No.VI, Kailashahar,
Unakoti, Tripura, PIN-799277.

5. The Technical Committee in c/w E-Tender ID 2024_CEWR_57897_1 (to
be represented by) The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division
No.VI, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, PIN-799277.

6. M/S S.N. Bhattacharjee & Sons (to be represented by) Mr. Sourin
Bhattacharjee, Proprietor, M/S S.N. Bhattacharjee & Sons, Address at
Chandrapur, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, PIN-799251.

. ………..Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharyya, G.A.,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate,
Mr. Tanmay Debbarma, Advocate.

Date of hearing : 02.03.2026.
Date of pronouncement : 13.03.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.

Page 2 of 19



HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
The background facts:




1) The petitioner is a Class-1(A) category enlisted government
contractor with experience in the field of construction related/civil engineering
works requisitioned by various government departments.
2) On 31.01.2025 the Executive Engineer, Water Resource
Division-VI, Kailashahar issued press notice inviting E-Tender from
interested bidders for the following works:
“Raising and strengthening of Embankments along
with anti erosion works under Unakoti District Tripura
during the year 2024-25; Raising and strengthening of
Katanala to Maguruli embankment near IBB fencing gate
No. 55 at Devipur under Gournagar RD Block during the
year 2024-25/SH; Raising and strengthening of embankment
by earth filling and turfing for a length of 4.30 KM.”

3) The time period for completion of the said works was fixed at 90
days and the last date for document downloading and bidding was scheduled
on 28.02.2025 at 5.00 p.m. The opening of the bids was scheduled for
28.02.2025 at 3.30 p.m. and the estimated cost of the said work was fixed at
Rs.6,58,53,370/-.
4) The petitioner filed his bid with all the requisite and necessary
documents as per the tender. Among them was also a certificate dt.25.11.2024
issued by the Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Hills, Assam certifying that
the petitioner was a Class-1(A) category contractor under the said Department
for the year 2024-2025 (Annexure-3- pg.46 in Writ Petition).

Page 3 of 19



5) On 05.03.2025 the Executive Engineer, Water Resource
Division-VI, Kailashahar (respondent No.4) wrote a letter (Annexure-4) to the
petitioner mentioning that the petitioner stood first in view of his quotation of
Rs.3,10,23,523/- which was 52.89% below the estimated cost of
Rs.6,58,53,370/- and his tender is under acceptance of the competent
authority. The said letter also mentioned that there was a complaint received
nd
against the petitioner from the 2 lowest tenderer M/s S.N. Bhattacharjee &
Sons (respondent No.6) regarding the authenticity of petitioner’s enlistment
th
under the Class-1(A) category. The petitioner was requested by the 4
respondent to provide details of work done as Class-1(A) category contractor
within two days.
6) The Chief Engineer, PWD, (WR Department) Government of
Tripura, (respondent No.3) appears to have inquired on 5.3.2025 with the
Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B)Hills, Assam and the latter through a letter
rd
dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-5) had informed the 3 respondent that the
Registration (Renewal) dated 25.11.2024 issued in favour of the petitioner was
genuine and valid and if any Govt./Govt.Undertaking Agency desires, then the
same may be allowed for participating in the tender process after their
consideration.

7) Petitioner also submitted a letter (Annexure-6) on 10.03.2025 to
th
the 4 respondent stating that the tender issued clearly mentioned that the
contractors enlisted as per Enlistment of Government Organization of other
states were also eligible to participate, that the Executive Engineer had already
verified enlistment of the petitioner from the issuing authority on mobile
phone, and that work orders for other two works under the same tender had

Page 4 of 19



already been issued, but the tender in question for the work referred to above
was under acceptance and the same was also emergency work. So in view of
the upcoming rainy season, work order be issued to him. Petitioner also
assured that he would forthwith deploy all men and machinery at the relevant
work site. Copy of this Letter was also marked to respondent no.3.
th
8) But ignoring the said letter of the petitioner, the 4 respondent
issued Letter of Acceptance of tender dt. 11.03.2025 (Annexure-7) to the
respondent no.6 which was the L2 bidder, accepting the quoted amount of
Rs.3,93,73,730/- submitted by him which was 40.21% below the estimated
cost, though this bid of respondent no.6 was more by Rs.83,50,207/- than the
financial bid of petitioner.
9) The petitioner immediately filed a complaint Annexure-8 on
th
11.03.2025 before the 4 respondent pointing out the shortcomings in the bid
submitted by the respondent no.6 and to declare the tender of the respondent
no.6 as null and void on the defects pointed out by the petitioner.
10) He also gave another representation (Annexure-8) on 11.03.2025
stating that as per the tender, enlistment of Government organization of other
States as Class- I(A) contractor will also make a bidder eligible to participate
in the said tender and on 05.03.2025 his registration as Class-1(A) contractor
was renewed by PWD(R&B) Department of Government of Assam as
mentioned above.
11) Petitioner also followed it up by legal notice issued on
12.03.2025 ( Annexure-9).

Page 5 of 19



The Work order dt.3.3.2025 issued to respondent no.6:
th
12) Without responding to the same, the 4 respondent issued a work
order (Annexure-10) on 13.03.2025 to respondent No.6 though it had quoted
Rs.83,50,207/- more than what the petitioner had quoted and though the
respondent no.6 was the L2 bidder and not the L1 bidder, who was the
petitioner.
The instant Writ Petition:
13) Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant Writ petition.
According to the petitioner, due to biased selection of the respondent No.6
instead of the petitioner there was a huge blow to the public exchequer as the
petitioner’s quotation was Rs.83,50,207/- less than that of the respondent
No.6. He also alleged that the complaint lodged against him by the respondent
no.6 was malicious and factually incorrect as the petitioner’s enlistment as
Class-1(A) category contractor was genuine and valid. He alleged that the
official respondents had not acted in a bona fide manner and that the action of
the official respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Articles
14,19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
14) He prayed that the Work Order dt.13.3.2025 issued to respondent
no.6 by respondent no.4 be quashed and cancelled, and they should declare
him as the Lowest Bidder and issue Work order to him.
Events after filing of the Writ Petition:
15) On 08.04.2025, the learned Government Advocate was granted
two weeks time to get instructions and furnish reply as to why the work order
was issued on a rate which was 40.21% below the quoted rate. The matter was
then adjourned to 28.04.2025.

Page 6 of 19



16) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on
25.4.2025 without answering the query posed by the court in specific terms in
its order dated 08.04.2025.
17) On 28.04.2025 this Court, therefore, asked the Advocate General
to file supplementary affidavit with specific answer to the query posed by the
Court. The matter was again adjourned by a week. On 3.5.2025 such
additional affidavit was filed by them. It was next listed on 06.05.2025 and on
the ground that the Advocate General was not available, it was adjourned by a
week.

18) Subsequently, it was listed on 27.05.2025 and at the request of
the petitioner it was adjourned to 05.11.2025.
19) When the matter was listed on 01.12.2025, it was noticed that
there was no notice issued till then to the respondent No. 6 and the petitioner
was directed to take steps for effecting service of notice upon the respondent
No.6.
20) Though the matter was listed on 11.12.2025 it was noticed that
the respondent no.6 was not served and so it was adjourned to 20.01.2026.
21) On that date the counsel appeared for the respondent no.6 and
sought time to file counter affidavit. The matter was then adjourned to
23.02.2026.
22) On 23.2.2026, counsel for the State stated that the work entrusted
to respondent no.6 was not yet completed though the work had to be
completed before 13.6.2025, which was already more than 7 months from the
date fixed for completion of the work.

Page 7 of 19



23) So he was directed by this Court to produce the measurement
book indicating the extent of work done by the private respondent by
13.6.2025 along with accompanying affidavit of concerned Head of
Department and any other supporting material regarding the delay in
execution of work by him. The matter was adjourned to 26.02.2026.
24) On that date, the court noticed that its direction given on
23.02.2025 was not complied with and adjourned the matter to 02.03.2026. On
27.2.2026, they filed another additional affidavit.
25) On that date, the matter was heard and judgment was reserved.
The stand of respondents 1 to 5 in the first counter affidavit dt.25.4.2025:
26) In the counter affidavit dated 25.04.2025 filed by the respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was having
two class of enlistment in Class-IV(A) in PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura
issued on 06.01.2023 and another enlistment in Class-1(A) category under
PWD(R&B), Government of Assam issued on 25.11.2024 and within a span
of 1 year 11 months the enlistment of petitioner made a meteoric jump from
Class-IV(A) to Class-I(A). It was also stated that the petitioner failed to
submit relevant working experience in Class-III/II category leading to Class-I.
It was stated that in view of this above suspicion and also the complaint
lodged by the respondent no.6, the status of enlistment of the petitioner was
verified and it was treated as non-responsive (informal) and also as the rate
quoted by him was very poor and abnormally low.
nd
27) While admitting that the 2 lowest tenderer’s quotation was also
40.21% below estimated cost based on Schedule of Rates-2023, and that it’s
capacity of resource mobilization and estimated cost was also poor, but since

Page 8 of 19



the nature of the work was simple like earth work, etc. and appeared to be
viable and also considering the readily available men and machinery as well as
the required resources at the disposal of the respondent no.6 and taking into
account national importance, the bid of the respondent no.6 was accepted.
28) It was also stated that there was a national emergency considering
that the country of Bangladesh was on the other side of Kailashahar and the
said country started raising and strengthening their embankment which was
posing serious threat to the existence of people of Kailashahar through
anticipated submergence in the ensuing rainy season.

29) It was alleged that within the span of 15 days prior to the filing of
the counter affidavit, more than 50% of the total work had been executed
satisfactorily to uphold the decision in view of the national importance of the
work.
30) It was stated that the total work was likely to be completed well
before the stipulated period for completion of work provided no uncalled for
hindrance arises.
31) Reference is also made to one of the terms in the tender which
permit the competent authority not to accept the lowest or any other tender
reserving to it the right to reject any or all the tenders received without
assigning any reason.
32) One other reason also mentioned ie., that possessing registration
by a individual contractor in two different classes i.e. Class-IV(A) in the State
of Tripura and Class-I(A) in the State of Assam is contrary to certain
provisions contained in the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors as per CPWD.

Page 9 of 19



The stand of respondent no.1 to 5 in the additional counter affidavit
dt.3.5.2025:
33) Thereafter, an additional affidavit was filed on 03.05.2025 by
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
34) Firstly it was reiterated that though the quoted rate was 40.21%
below the Schedule of Rates of 2023 by the respondent no.6 was also poor but
resourcefulness of the respondent no.6 could neutralize the negative impact.
Quoting of poor rate was not at all desirable and wholesome which vitiates the
working environment and departmental watch and ward warrants to remain
extra vigilant and need of the hour was to evolve an administrative mechanism
to curb such a tendency to nip in the bid such discouraging activities.
35) It was again reiterated that the petitioner did not produce proof of
completion of works in Class-III/II or even in Class-I category though he had
submitted the letter dated 05.03.2025 of the Additional Chief Engineer,
PWD(R&B), Government of Assam.
36) The justification of alleged national emergency was again
pleaded.
th
37) The 4 respondent even wrote a letter on 02.05.2025 (Annexure-
rd
R/5) assuring the 3 respondent that the entire work will be completed well
before the target date of completion, i.e. 12.06.2025.
The stand of respondent no.6:
38) The respondent no.6 filed his counter affidavit on 20.02.2026.
39) In para 4 of the counter affidavit, it stated that by then it had
completed only 71% of the work, i.e. by 20.02.2026 only 71% of the work
could be completed though the entire work was to be completed before
12.06.2025.

Page 10 of 19



40) The other contentions of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were also
adopted by the respondent no.6.
41) There is also reference to the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors
in CPWD, 2021 which states in Clause 6.1.4 that a contractor is permitted to
have enlistment in more than 1 category but not in more than one class in the
same category.

The third affidavit of respondents 1 to 5 filed in 27.2.2026:

42) When this court asked the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to inform about
the status of progress of work, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a counter
affidavit on 27.02.2026 stating for the first time that during the stipulated
period of 90 days work, i.e. 13.03.2025 and 12.06.2025, the respondent no.6
had executed only 36.36% of work. It is also stated that time extension had
been granted to the respondent no.6 several times and that even till date the
work is not completed.
43) Reference is also made to sudden change in the Government in
the country of Bangladesh in August, 2024 and it is stated that thereafter
social and political environment along the international border fencing became
volatile and that Bangladesh without any notice started raising embankment in
their side and that is why the work was taken up.
44) It is admitted in para 8 of this counter affidavit that multiple
times, extension had been granted to respondent no.6 to complete the work
from 23.6.2025 to 31.3.2026.

Page 11 of 19



The consideration by the Court:
45) The scope of judicial review in the matters relating to award of
tenders by State/Instrumentalities of the State was elaborately considered in
1
Tata Cellular v. Union of India and the Supreme Court had held:
“The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of
legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers,
2. committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would
have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
“Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a
particular policy or particular decision taken in the
fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the
manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent
of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly
put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is
subject to control by judicial review can be classified as
under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-
making power and must give effect to it;
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule
out addition of further grounds in course of time.”

46) Explaining the same, the Supreme Court stated in Asia
2
:
Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. ,

1
(1994) 6 SCC 651

Page 12 of 19



“10. Therefore, though the principle of judicial review
cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of
government bodies are concerned, but it is intended to
prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and it is exercised in the
larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of the
court that in the matter of award of a contract power has
been exercised for any collateral purpose.”
( emphasis supplied )
3
47) In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , this was
again reiterated in the following terms:
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles
emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action
by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance
is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to
the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act
validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of
reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the
purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role
to play in this process except for striking down such action
of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with
certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of
contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;

2

(1997) 1 SCC 738, at page 746
3
(2012) 8 SCC 216, at page 228 :

Page 13 of 19



(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender
document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is
required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the
action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious
and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts
is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have
to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the
capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work;
and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly
and in public interest in awarding contract, here again,
interference by court is very restrictive since no person can
claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the
Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review,
should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the
authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or
whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision
is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and
in accordance with relevant law could have reached”? and
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?”

4
48) In Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd. , the Supreme
Court stated that the State has the right to refuse the lowest or any other
tender, provided that it tries to get the best person or the best quotation . It held
that where there is irrationality or arbitrariness, judicial review is permissible.

4
(2018) 5 SCC 462 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 291, at page 475

Page 14 of 19



49) Keeping in mind these settled principles, we shall consider the
matter.
50) We have noticed the contentions of the parties in the pleadings
filed. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was the L1 bidder and the
respondent no.6 was the L2 bidder. The petitioner’s bid was 52.89% below the
estimated cost while the respondent no.6’s bid was 40.21% below the
estimated cost. If the State had accepted the bid of the petitioner and awarded
the work to him, the State would have undoubtedly have saved Rs.83,50,207/-
which was the difference in the financial bid between that of the petitioner and
the respondent no.6. The respondent no.6’s quotation was Rs.83,50,207/-
more than that of the petitioner. Undoubtedly, acceptance of the bid of the
petitioner by the respondents would have caused considerable saving to the
public exchequer.
51) The questions to be considered are:
“Is the process adopted by respondents 1 to 6 for awarding work
to the respondent no.6 ( L2 tenderer), instead of the petitioner(L1
tenderer) proper and justified and in public interest?”

52) Admittedly, both the petitioner and respondent no.6 had quoted
much below the estimated cost as per the Schedule of Rates-2023.
53) In the second counter affidavit dt.3.5.2025 filed by respondent
nos. 1 to 5 it is stated:
“trend of quoting of poor rate was not at all desirable and
wholesome which vitiates the working environment and
departmental watch and ward warrants to remain extra
vigilant and need of the hour was to evolve an administrative
mechanism to curb such a tendency to nip in the bid such
discouraging activities.” (at para 2 page 5)

Page 15 of 19



54) If this was the thinking of respondents 1 to 5, they could as well
have cancelled the tender dt.31.1.2025 and issued a fresh tender. But they did
not do so. Thus they acted arbitrarily.
55) Next, we shall consider whether the rejection of petitioner’s
tender was on valid grounds.
56) Admittedly, the tender condition required a tenderer to have a
Class-1(A) contractor’s registration, but it did not insist that such a registration
should be in the State of Tripura only.
57) Thus, persons like petitioner having Class-1(A) contractor
registration in other States, such as Assam, were also eligible and not
disqualified.
58) Admittedly, along with it’s bid, the petitioner had submitted a
certificate dated 25.11.2024 issued by the Additional Chief Engineer,
PWD(R&B), Assam that he possesses Class-1(A) category contractor’s
rd
registration in that State. The 3 respondent had even verified the same from
the office of the Additional Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B), Assam and the latter
had written on 10.03.2025 that the Class-1(A) registration of the petitioner had
been renewed on 25.11.2024 and that it is genuine and valid and he can be
considered for participating in tender process.

59) There is thus no scope for any doubt being entertained by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as to the petitioner being a Class-1(A) contractor.
60) Even if the CPWD Rules for Enlistment of Contractors, 2021 did
say that a contractor is permitted to have enlistment in more than one category
but not in more than one class in the same category, obviously this is not being

Page 16 of 19



rigidly followed because the State of Assam had given him Class 1(A)
contractor’s registration.
61) There is also no prohibition in the tender that a person having
registration in more than one class in the same category is ineligible.
Obviously reliance on this Rule by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is a clear
afterthought to somehow or the other justify the disqualification of the
petitioner. So the decision to reject the tender of petitioner is arbitrary and
unreasonable and violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
62) We shall now proceed to consider whether or not such action was
taken by respondents 1 to 5 because of bias/favoritism towards respondent
no.6 and malafide.
63) In counter affidavit dt.3.5.2026 at page 7 para 2 respondents 1 to
5 stated that because of alleged extreme National emergency, to protect the
people of Kailashshahar, the respondent no.6 was chosen. We shall now
examine the veracity of this plea.
64) The town of Kailashahar where the work is to be executed is no
doubt adjacent to the neighboring country Bangladesh.
65) As per para 10 of the counter affidavit dt. 27.02.2026 filed by
respondents 1 to 5, it is alleged that the situation changed in the country of
Bangladesh in August, 2024 i.e. much before the tender was issued in the
subject matter on 31.01.2025.
66) For 5 months after the situation changed, the respondents 1 to 5
did not see any urgency/emergency. The work was awarded to the respondent
no.6 under the work order dt. 13.03.2025 after accepting the respondent no.6’s
bid under Letter of Acceptance dt. 11.03.2025.

Page 17 of 19



67) It is not as if there was a state of war existing between India and
Bangladesh. Obviously the so called situation in Bangladesh, had no relevance
to the decision taken with regard to the award of the subject tender to
respondent no.6, and is being used to draw wool over the eyes of the Court
and somehow justify the arbitrary and illegal decision to disqualify the
petitioner and award the contract to the respondent no.6.
68) There is yet another aspect of the matter.
69) The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the initial counter affidavit filed by
them on 25.04.2025 made a false averment that within the previous 15 days
from that date, more than 50% of the total work had been executed
satisfactorily by the respondent no.6.
70) But this is contradicted by the statement in their additional
affidavit dt. 27.02.2026 (in para 6) that only 36.36% of the work was
completed during the stipulated 90 days period of the work, i.e. between
13.03.2025 to 12.06.2025.
71) Again in para 9 of the additional affidavit dt.27.2.2026 filed by
respondents 1 to 5, it was stated that only 750m out of 4.5 km remains to be
done i.e., 83.56% work was completed.
72) But the respondent no.6, in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by
it on 20.2.2026 has stated that by then, it had completed only 71% of the work
could be completed, though the entire work was to be completed before
12.06.2025.
73) Thus brazenly the respondents 1 to 5 had chosen to mislead this
Court by giving a false impression as to the amount of work executed by

Page 18 of 19



respondent n.6 to justify their illegal and arbitrary action in favoring the
respondent no.6 over the petitioner.
74) Also though the respondent no.6 had not been working efficiently
and had not completed the allotted work by 13.6.2025, and had not completed
the work even by March, 2026, admittedly no action to terminate it’s contract
had been initiated by respondents 1 to 5.
75) Instead they admitted in their affidavit dt.27.2.2026 that they had
repeatedly given extensions from 23.6.2025 till 31.3.2026.
76) This shows the extent to which they went out of the way to favor
the respondent no.6.
77) Moreover, the plea of possible emergency occurring in the
ensuing monsoon season might cause danger to residents of Kailashhar is also
false as no such danger admittedly materialised during the monsoon season of
2025 to them though the respondent no.6 hardly did any work by 13.6.2025.
78) In fact the respondents 1 to 5 jeopardized public interest because
such delays in execution of work would inevitably result in escalation of cost,
negating any financial gain to the State and they also enrich respondent No.6
substantially.
79) This shows how they acted without bonafides and contrary to
public interest by awarding the work to the incompetent and inefficient entity
like respondent no.6, which had miserably failed to execute the work in
question within the time stipulated.
80) The facts narrated above thus demolish the stand of the
respondents 1 to 5 that the resourcefulness of respondent no.6 was such that
they believed that it could finish the work in the time of 3 months stipulated.

Page 19 of 19



The stand of the respondents 1 to 6 in the first counter affidavit dt.25.4.2025
that “the total work was likely to be completed well before the stipulated
period for completion of work provided no uncalled for hindrance arises ” was
thus proved, by later events, to be a mirage.
81) For all the aforesaid reasons , this Court is disposing of the Writ
Petition by moulding the relief as under:
(i) The award of the work to the respondent no.6 under the
work order dt. 13.03.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is declared
as arbitrary, unreasonable and on account of bias/favouritism
towards the respondent no.6;
(ii) The rejection of the tender of the petitioner by respondents
1 to 6 is mala fide and wholly unjustified apart from being
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India;
(iii) The respondents are directed to forthwith cancel the work
th
order dt.13.03.2025 issued by the 4 respondent to the respondent
no.6 and blacklist the respondent no.6 for future contracts for one
year.
(iv) The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall also pay costs of
Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
82. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
PULAK BANIK
Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.03.13 15:48:56 +05'30'