Rhino Enterprises vs Union Of India And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010230502026

2026:GAU-AS:16041
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5956/2026
RHINO ENTERPRISES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT R. K. BARUAH ROAD,
CHANDAN NAGAR, GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. PIN 785621. REPRESENTED BY
ITS PARTNER, SRI NIRMAL CHHAWCHHARIA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SON OF LATE SAWARMAL AGARWALA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 5G,
MAINAK GREEN, CHRISTAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM- 781005
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC
DISTRIBUTION, ROOM NO. 546 C, KRISHI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW
DELHI-110001
2:FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR
16-20
BARAKHAMBA LANE
KHADY SADAN
NEW DELHI 110001
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACTS)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI)
ZONAL OFFICE (NE)
GUWAHATI
G. S. ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI ASSAM -781007
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (R)

Page No.# 2/7
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI)
ASSAM REGION
REGIONAL OFFICE
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM -78100
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC


· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 02.11.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : NA

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr.
K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent
No. 1.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
rejection of the Petitioner's tender as technically non-responsive
vide decision dated 04.09.2026 wherein it is mentioned that the
Petitioner's bid was rejected inasmuch as the Petitioner did not
comply with Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender and

Page No.# 3/7
Instructions to Tenderers which forms part of the detailed Notice
Inviting Tender dated 30.04.2026.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that a detailed Notice
Inviting Tender was issued by the General Manager (Region) on
30.04.2026 inviting bids from eligible bidders who own land or hold
land under a registered lease for a minimum period of 19 years
with permission to construct a godown or are willing to acquire
land by way of ownership/registered lease within 180 days from
the date of acceptance of the tender for construction of a godown
to meet the FCI storage requirements to be managed and
supervised by the tenderer for a guaranteed lease of 15 years on a
build, own and operate on “lease with services” basis for storage of
food grains in RH FKG (Furkating) within the Jorhat FCI Division.
4. The detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 30.04.2026 contains
various parts including one under the heading "Invitation to Tender
and Instructions to Tenderers". Various terms and conditions were
mentioned in this part, including the manner of signing the tender.
Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender and Instructions to
Tenderers, being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:
“ 2. Whether signing as a “partner” of the Firm or their duly constituted
Attorney having authority to bind all Partners in all the matter pertaining to

Page No.# 4/7
Tender. Partnership Firms registered under the Indian Partnership Act, the
Signatory has to mention the capacity in which he is signing as Partner or their
duly constituted Attorney and produce copy of document empowering him to
do so.”
5. From a perusal of the above quoted Clause, it would appear
that when a tenderer is a partnership firm registered under the
Indian Partnership Act, the signatory to the tender has to mention
the capacity in which he is signing either as a partner or as a
constituted attorney and produce a copy of the document
empowering him to do so. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not submit
any specific document upon a presumption that Clause 8(vi)(A) of
the Admission-Cum-Retirement Deed of Partnership of Rhino
Enterprises, the Petitioner provided that the tender could be
submitted either jointly or severally by the partners on behalf of
the partnership firm.
6. Be that as it may, on account of non-submission of the specific
document, the Petitioner's bid was held to be technically non-
responsive for non-compliance with Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation
to Tender and Instructions to Tenderers. This aspect was intimated
to the Petitioner through the bid portal on 04.09.2026.
7. The Petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on

Page No.# 5/7
05.09.2026 to the General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of
India which was signed by all the partners stating inter alia that
under the Admission-Cum-Retirement Deed of Partnership of the
Petitioner firm dated 14.05.2026 and more particularly under
Clause 8(vi)(A), either or all the partners could submit bids on
behalf of the Petitioner firm.
8. The said representation was not considered and was rejected
on 23.09.2026 and it is under such circumstances that the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
9. At this stage, it is also pertinent to take note of that the
instant writ petition was filed on 09.10.2026 and that today, when
the matter was taken up for Motion, Mr. C. Sharma, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner duly informed this
Court that the said tender process had been cancelled and a fresh
detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.10.2026 had been issued.
A copy of the said detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.10.2026
was placed before this Court during the course of the hearing
which is kept on record and marked with the letter "X".
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

Page No.# 6/7
submitted that the decision of the Respondent Authorities to hold
the Petitioner's bid to be technically non-responsive in terms of
Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender and Instructions to
Tenderers was taken without considering Clause 8(vi)(A) of the
Admission-Cum-Retirement Deed of Partnership dated 14.05.2026.
11. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the matter
and from a perusal of Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender
and Instructions to Tenderers, it is apparently clear that the
tendering authority being the employer had specifically sought for
a document empowering a particular partner to submit the tender.
When the tendering authority seeks such a document and
admittedly, no document has been placed on record whereby all
the partners of the Petitioner firm have authorized one of the
partners to submit the bid, it is the opinion of this Court that in
exercise of the limited jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the decision of the Respondent Authorities to
reject the Petitioner's bid as technically non-responsive for non-
compliance with Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender and
Instructions to Tenderers does not call for any interference.
12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant
writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Page No.# 7/7
13. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes
that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the
Petitioner from submitting a bid pursuant to the fresh Notice
Inviting Tender dated 17.10.2026, if so advised.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.11.02 23:20:39 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant