Dismissed¶36

Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 2 Ors. v. the Assam University and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2025WP(C)/4667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WP(C)/4667/2024, Gauhati High Court, decided 03.11.2025 by Devashis Baruah, J.) challenging restrictive clauses in Assam University's Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.08.2024, GeM Bid No.GEM/2024/B/5290330; experience-based eligibility clause upheld as within the Tendering Authority's rights; Clauses 1 and 3 held non-contradictory; Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 (para 15) relied on; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioners' submission against Clause 1 of the Bid Document is completely misconceived: the Tendering Authority has the right to incorporate terms and conditions and to invite bids only from those persons who are experienced. ¶30

Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 2 Ors. Vs the Assam University and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 1 of the Bid Document, confining eligibility to bidders having experience for a number of years in providing similar types of service to any Central Government/State Government/PSUs with relevant contracts/orders uploaded in support, is restrictive and open to challenge. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There appears to be nothing contradictory between Clause No.1 and Clause No.3 of the Bid Document on the face of it.

¶31

Key takeaways

No case has been made out by the Petitioners for interference with the said Tender Document.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), order dated 03.11.2025 in WP(C)/4667/2024 (neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:14914): Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 2 others challenged the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.08.2024 (Bid No.GEM/2024/B/5290330) issued by the Assam University as restrictive. Held: (i) the objection to Clause 1, which confines eligibility to bidders experienced in providing similar services to any Central Government/State Government/PSUs, is misconceived — the Tendering Authority has the right to incorporate terms and conditions and to invite bids only from experienced persons; (ii) there is nothing contradictory between Clause 1 and Clause 3 (estimated bid value declared solely for guidance of EMD amount and eligibility criteria) on the face of it; reliance placed on Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another, (2016) 16 SCC 818, para 15, for the proposition that the Tendering Authority, as author of the document, may frame terms to obtain the best procurement services. No case for interference; writ petition dismissed.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010186592024

2025:GAU-AS:14914

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4667/2024

¶6

KISHORE KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE KETAKI RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, RESIDENT OF MALUGRAM, MELA ROAD, SILCHAR- 788002, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SAUMITRA SANKAR DUTT SON OF LATE SUBODH CHANDRA DUTT

¶8

HOUSE NO. 142C TRINAYANEE NAG NAHA LANE SILCHAR- 788004.

¶9

3: NITU COUDHURY SON OF LATE NABENDU CHOUDHURY

¶10

RESIDENT OF CLUB ROAD

¶11

SILCHAR- 788001

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, DORGOKONA, SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788011.

¶14

2:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY DORGOKONA SILCHAR

Page No.# 2/4

DIST. CACHAR ASSAM

PIN- 788011.

3:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

¶19

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110001

¶20

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Nath, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, Standing Counsel

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 03.11.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶26

The Petitioner herein has assailed the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.08.2024 bearing Bid No.GEM/2024/B/5290330.

¶27

It is the case of the Petitioners that by the said Notice Inviting Tender, the Respondent Authorities have incorporated certain terms which are restrictive. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in terms with Clause 1, the Respondent Authorities have permitted

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

only those bidders who have experienced for number of years of providing similar types of service to any Central Government/State Government/PSUs and have also sought for relevant contracts/orders to be uploaded along with bid in support of having provided services during each of the financial year. The learned counsel submits that this particular Clause is restrictive.

¶30

In the opinion of this Court, the said submission is completely misconceived inasmuch as the Tendering Authority has the right to incorporate terms and conditions and to invite bids only from those persons who are experienced. Under such circumstances, the submission as regards the Clause No.1 of the Bid Document is misconceived.

¶31

As regards Clause No.3, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners further submitted that the said Clause No.3 is contrary to Clause No.1 inasmuch as, it is stipulated in Clause No.3 that the estimated bid value indicated is being declared solely for the purpose of guidance of the EMD amount and for determining the eligibility criteria relating to Turn Over, Past Performance and Project/Past Experience etc. In the opinion of this Court, there appears to be nothing contradictory between Clause No.1 and Clause No.3 on the face of it.

¶32

Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that no case has been made out by the Petitioners for interference with the said Tender Document.

¶33

This Court also finds it pertinent at this stage to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

(2016) 16 SCC 818 more particularly paragraph No.15 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically observed that the Tendering Authority being the author of the document has the liberty to incorporate such terms and conditions as the said Tendering Authority feels for getting the best procurement services.

¶36

Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 2 Ors. v. the Assam University and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 2 Ors. v. the Assam University and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badan Kalita Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Biplabananda Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Arvee Engineering Consultants Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ajay Agarwalla Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dibru Part-I Meen Samabai Samati Ltd. Vs Prabhati Thaosen , IAS and Anr. E

Sujit Boro Vs the State of Assam