M/S Rahul Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010209472025

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/310/2025

¶6

M/S RAHUL ENTERPRISE

¶7

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL KUMAR BISEN, AGE BOUT 42 RS. S/O LT. MAHESH KUMAR, R/O RAILWAY COLONY, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, P.O. AND P.S. PANBAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN 781001

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, ASSAM 781006

¶11

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI ASSAM

¶12

GUWAHATI 781003

¶13

3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI ASSAM GUWAHATI 781003

¶14

4:THE TENDER COMMITTEE

¶15

RIDF XXX (NABARD) FOR THE YEAR 2024-25 IRRIGATION DEPTT.

¶16

ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶17

5:M/S PINAK ENTERPRISE

¶18

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY IS PROPRIETOR SMT. PINA MAJUMDAR RADHA NAGAR PATHARKUWARI

¶19

Page No.# 2/7

¶20

VIP ROAD KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 781028 6:M/S KAMRUP ENTERPRISE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MADHAB DEKA ANANDA NAGAR SIX MILE KHANAPARA KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 781022 7:M/S JM AND NJA (JV) A JOINT VENTURE PRABATI BHAWAN 131 FA ROAD KUMARPARA KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 78100

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR, P KHATANIAR

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶23

Linked Case : WP(C)/653/2025

¶24

M/S RAHUL ENTERPRSE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL KUMAR BISEN

¶25

S/O LATE MAHESH KUMAR R/O RAILWAY COLONY PANBAZAR P.O. AND PS. PANBAZAR DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI-781001 VERSUS

¶26

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 3:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 4:THE TENDER COMMITTEE RIDF XXX (NABARD)FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY 5:M/S PINAK ENTERPRISE A PROP. FIRM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. PINA MAJUMDAR RADHA NAGAR PATHARKUWARI VIP ROAD KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI-28 6:M/S KAMRUP ENTERPRISE A PROP. FIRM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MADHAB DEKA ANANDA NAGAR SIX MILE KHANAPARA KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI-22 7:M/S JM AND NJA (JV) A JOINT VENTURE PRABATI BHAWAN 131, FA ROAD KUMARPARA KAMRUP (M)

¶29

Page No.# 4/7

¶30

GUWAHATI-01

¶31

-----------Advocate for : MR P H KONWAR Advocate for : SC IRRIGATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶32

For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Advocate

¶33

Mr. P. Khataniar, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, SC, Irrigation Mr. J. C. Gaur, Advocate

¶34

– BEFORE –

¶35

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶36

14.10.2025

¶37

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶38

Both the writ appeal and the writ petition have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

¶39

We have heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.

¶40

The appellant, who was the lowest bidder (L-1) in a tender process initiated by the Irrigation Department for some renovation works under Package No. 38, had preferred the above-captioned writ petition [WP(C) 653/2025)] questioning the decision of the respondents to split the contract work amongst the appellant and three other bidders (respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7) instead of awarding the entire package to him at his quoted rate.

¶41

Page No.# 5/7

¶42

The grounds raised by the appellant is that the decision to split the work and award the same to other bidders is arbitrary, lacks cogent reasons and that splitting has not been done fairly. Though it was admitted that Clause No. 29(iii) of the Tender documents (“Instructions to Bidders”) allowed splitting of the work, but it could have been done only with some justification. The contention of the appellant therefore is that the splitting order does not reflect any justification for splitting the work and allotting the least share of the work to him.

¶43

The records reveal that the appellant had offered a bid which was below 10% of the threshold, but the same was accepted and a preliminary work order was issued to him on 24.01.2025.

¶44

The appellant contends that because of such unfair allocation of a lesser portion of work, he had approached the court and he was in the expectation of getting allotted the full contract work under the package. The other grounds raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition was that even the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) and the work order were not communicated to him, about which he learnt from a third party only on 30.01.2025.

¶45

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner insists that such LOA and work order were not even uploaded on the e- procurement website of the respondents and precisely for this reason, he could not deposit the Performance Security and the Additional Performance Security within the stipulated time, which in this case was February, 2025. He submits that there was an interim status quo order passed in the writ petition giving an impression to the appellant that there

¶46

Page No.# 6/7

¶47

could be no deposit of the Performance Security or Additional Performance Security during such status quo period.

¶48

Later on, as the records reveal, the interim order was vacated on the ground that the status quo order was passed after the last date fixed for deposit of the Performance Security and the Additional Performance Security.

¶49

Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has apprised this Court that as on date, two of the allottees of the work have completed their shares of work, whereas the third allottee is about to complete his share of work. He submits that because of the litigation and because of the appellant not having deposited the Performance Security and also having not started his share of the work in the right earnest, the entire project was delayed for more than six months, forcing the respondents to cancel the contract with the appellant.

¶50

Mr. Choudhury contends that the justification for allotting the appellant/writ petitioner the least share or work is non-existent in the allocation of work order and that he was never served with the LOA or the work order, which actually prevented him from depositing the Performance Security by the due date.

¶51

As on date, Mr. Choudhury submits, notwithstanding the cancellation of his contract, he is ready to do his part of work on the same terms and conditions if a decision to that effect is taken by the concerned respondent.

¶52

Countering the argument of Mr. Choudhury, it is submitted by Mr. Nayak that since the appellant’s conduct has led to such inordinate

¶53

Page No.# 7/7

¶54

delay in completion of a public work project, there was a conscious decision of the respondents to cancel the contract with the appellant and the respondent/department is seriously contemplating of awarding the contract to another concessionaire from the same bid.

¶55

Under the circumstances, we do not find any fault with the decision of the respondents in splitting the work, which is permissible under the terms and conditions of the “Instructions to Bidders”; but we direct that if, within this time a decision has not already been taken to allot the appellant’s share of work to somebody else, then the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner may be considered after obtaining an undertaking from him that he shall complete the work under the same terms and conditions and within the time that may be stipulated by the respondents. However, such consideration shall be purely in the domain of the administrative decision of the respondents.

¶56

With the afore-noted observations, both the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed off.

¶57

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

M/S Rahul Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rahul Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gandhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Constable No. 9087100 Robin Chandra Bhuyan Vs the Union of India and Ors.

MD Nurul Haque and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Mithu Yadav Vs the Gauhati High Court and 21 Ors.

M/S Rahul Enterprse Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Ms Abigail Hmingthanpari Vs the Gauhati High Court and Ors.