Gauhati HC Revives Road-Safety Tender After Officials Cited Contractor’s Alleged Poor Performance On Asom Mala 2.0 Without Applying Bid’s Non-Performance Test

The petitioner was ranked L-1 and recommended for award of a road-safety works contract under Package ASRIP/A/RS-2A.

The Tender Committee nevertheless recommended cancellation and retendering, relying on complaints and inquiry reports concerning the petitioner’s performance in a separate, ongoing Asom Mala 2.0 project.

The cancellation notice did not state its reasons.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation and the fresh tender, alleging non-compliance with the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 and reliance on unpublished or unproven disqualification grounds.

The respondents maintained that the inquiry material justified the decision and that L-1 status gave the petitioner no right to the contract.

Under Sections 7(5) and 14(6) of the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017, and Rules 15(2), 15(3) and 23(14)(v) of the Assam Procurement Rules, 2020, bidder eligibility and qualification must be assessed only by the criteria specified in the bidding documents.

Section 26(1) permits cancellation before acceptance of the successful bid for reasons recorded in writing, while Section 26(3) requires prompt communication of the cancellation decision and its reasons to participating bidders.

The tender documents’ historical non-performance criterion required non-performance resulting from contractor default, as defined in the documents; a complaint or remediable deficiency alone was not equivalent to such non-performance.

Judicial review in procurement matters examines the legality and rationality of the decision-making process, not the merits of the technical assessment; the Court relied on Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2017) 14 SCC 517, and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216.

The cancellation notice did not communicate any reasons, contrary to Section 26(3), even though the Tender Committee minutes referred to the complaints and inquiry reports.

Those reports recorded concerns and defects in the separate project but did not establish, without further assessment, that the petitioner met the bidding documents’ prescribed test for historical non-performance.

The Committee did not show that it applied that test before setting aside the procurement process.

Because the adverse assessment could affect the petitioner’s eligibility in the fresh tender and future procurements, fairness required an opportunity to respond; moreover, the record did not explain why cancellation of the entire tender was necessary.

The absence of an automatic right to the contract as L-1 did not excuse non-compliance with the statutory and tender framework.

It set aside the cancellation notice dated 10 September 2026 and the fresh tender issued that day, allowed the writ petition, and directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with the original NIT dated 10 February 2026.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.