Sri Utpal Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK B, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

¶11

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI - 781003.

¶12

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT BHAWANIPUR SORBHOG PAKA BETBARI TERRITORIAL ROADS DIVISION BARPETA ROAD DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR D KALITA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD,

¶15

Page No.# 2/11

¶16

Linked Case : WP(C)/5494/2025

¶17

SRI UTPAL BAISHYA S/O- SANKAR BAISHYA R/O- VILLAGE - PAIKARKUCHI P.O.- SONDHA DISTRICT - NALBARI ASSAM - 781337.

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR BLOCK B ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI - 781003. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT BHAWANIPUR SORBHOG PAKA BETBARI TERRITORIAL ROADS DIVISION BARPETA ROAD DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM. -----------For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Kalita, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. A.G.

¶20

Page No.# 3/11

¶21

Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 16.09.2025

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶23

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶24

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who is also the Standing Counsel of the respondent PWD.

¶25

Taking into account that the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar and there is an urgency expressed, both the writ petitions are taken up together at the motion stage itself for disposal by this common judgment and order.

¶26

The Office of the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWRD, Assam had issued a Press Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.08.2025 thereby inviting bids for 79 (seventy nine) Nos. of packages for construction of roads under Mukhya Mantrir Pakipath Nirman Achani (MMPPNA) under RIDF-XXXI of Nabard for the year 2025-26 in Barpeta, Cachar, Charaideo, Dhubri, Hailakandi, Kamrup, Dhemaji, Morigaon and Sribhumi districts of Assam amounting to Rs. 263.66 Crore (approximately) including GST etc. from approved and eligible contractors registered with PWRD, Assam. Subsequent thereto, by

¶27

Page No.# 4/11

¶28

issuance of a Corrigendum dated 26.08.2025, the packages were reduced from 79 to 78 and the total amount was reduced from 263.66 Crore to 256.62 Crore. Further to that, it was mentioned that the details may be seen from 28.08.2025 instead of 18.08.2025. The materials on record further show that a detail Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 26.08.2025 enlisting the 78 packages.

¶29

4. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 5491/2025 is interested in package

¶30

at Serial No. 58, the details of which are reproduced herein under:

¶31

Sl. No.	Name of	Name of Work	LAC	Package	Estimate	Bid Security	Tender	Completion
	District			no.	d Amount		Processing	period in
					(Rs. in	(in Rs.)[Refer	Fee (In	months
					Lakhs)	ITB Clause	Rs.)
						Ref:16)]
58	Barpeta	Pakabetbari	Improvement of road	MMPPNA	310.93	6,22,000.00	6,220.00	12
			from (i) Milan Bazar to Bherabhitha road (ii) Bhaktaduba to Balapara Road Kawaimarl to 11 no block waste side Kaldiya River via Kawaimarl J Lata LP School (iii) Rangia Nodir Gaon to Zero Bazar under Mukhya Mantrir Paki Path Nirman Achani (MMPPNA) under RIDF-XXXI of NABARD for theyear 2025-26	RIDF_XXX I_25_26_4 71

¶32

Page No.# 5/11

¶33

5. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 5494/2025 is interested to submit bids in respect to the packages at serial Nos. 59 and 60. The said

¶34

packages being relevant are reproduced herein under:

¶35

Sl. No.	Name of	Name of Work	LAC	Package	Estimate	Bid Security	Tender	Completion
	District			no.	d Amount		Processing	period in
					(Rs. in Lakhs)	(in Rs.)[Refer ITB Clause Ref:16)]	Fee (In Rs.)	months
59	Barpeta	Pakabetbari	Improvement of road	MMPPNA	140.00	2,80,000.00	2,800.00	9
			from Ata Bhowkamari Road to Pathargati Road under Mukhya Mantrir Paki Path Nirman Achani (MMPPNA) under RIDF-XXXI of NABARD for theyear 2025-26.	RIDF_XXX I_25_26_4 72
60	Barpeta	Pakabetbari	Improvement of road	MMPPNA	246.82	4,94,000.00	4,940.00	9
			from i) Nakkati to Barbala, ii) Bhaktardoba Bazar to Madhya Kawaimari 10 no block LP school under Mukhya Mantrir Paki Path Nirman Achani (MMPPNA) under RIDF-XXXI of NABARD for theyear 2025-26	RIDF_XXX I_25_26_4 73

¶36

This Court further takes note of that in the detail Notice Inviting Tender, the time schedule has been duly mentioned. The date for submission of the bid is fixed on 05.09.2025 and the last date for

¶37

Page No.# 6/11

¶38

submission of the bid is on 19.09.2025 up to 14.00 hours. The technical bids would be opened on 19.09.2025 at 14.30 hours.

¶39

The issue involved herein pertains to the requirement of submission of a mandatory Site Visit Certificate with the verification from the concerned Engineer authenticating the visit of the bidder to the site of the work and submit the same along with the bid. Taking into account the relevance, Clause 7 of the Instructions to Bidders which details out the site visit conditions as well as Clause 7.1 are reproduced herein under:

¶40

“7. Site visit

¶41

7.1 The Bidder, at the Bidder's own responsibility and risk is bound to visit and examine the site of works and its surroundings and obtain all information that may be necessary for preparing the Bid and entering into a contract for construction of the works.

¶42

The Bidder shall obtain a mandatory Site Visit Certificate with Verification from Concerned Engineer authenticating his visit to the site of works and submit the same along with the Bid.

¶43

The costs of visiting the site shall be at the bidder's own expense.

¶44

The Bidder also acknowledges that prior to submission of Bid, he has, after a complete and careful examination, made an independent evaluation of the Scope of the Project, Specifications and Standards of design, construction and maintenance, Site, local conditions, physical qualities of ground, subsoil and geology, suitability and availability of access routes to the Site and all information provided by the Employer or obtained, procured or gathered otherwise, and has determined to its satisfaction the accuracy or otherwise thereof and the nature and extent of difficulties, risks and hazards as are

¶45

Page No.# 7/11

¶46

likely to arise or may be faced by it in the course of performance of its obligations hereunder. The Employer makes no representation whatsoever, express, implicit or otherwise regarding the accuracy, adequacy, correctness, reliability and/or completeness of any assessment, assumptions, statement or information provided by it and the Bidder confirms that it shall have no claim whatsoever against the Employer in this regard.”

¶47

The case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5491/2025 is that the representatives of the petitioner visited the site on 04.09.2025 and submitted an application to the Executive Engineer, PWRD i.e. the respondent No. 3 for authenticating the Site Visit Certificate on the same date. However, the said certificate was not issued, for which, a legal notice was also issued by the counsel of the petitioner on 10.09.2025 but to no avail.

¶48

In WP(C) No. 5494/2025, the petitioner had categorically stated at paragraph No. 6 of his writ petition that he visited the sites in respect to packages at serial Nos. 59 and 60 on 04.09.2025 and submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 for issuance of the Site Visit Certificates which however having not been issued, the petitioner through his legal counsel had issued legal notices to the respondent No. 3, however, to no avail.

¶49

When the matter was taken up, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam placed an instruction before this

¶50

Page No.# 8/11

¶51

Court to the effect that the respondent No. 3 had received the communications on 05.09.2025, but the petitioners have not communicated with the Office for Site Visit Certificate and as such, the said certificate cannot be provided merely on the basis of a letters submitted. It was also mentioned that the certificate can only be provided after physical verification including the contractor himself or herself along with PWD Officials validated by Geotagged photographs. The said instruction so produced is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

¶52

Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that a perusal of the Instructions to Bidders nowhere would show that there is a requirement of production of Geotagged photographs along with the PWD Officials. He further submitted that the format also does not mention so.

¶53

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also duly perused Clause 7.1 of the Instructions to Bidders as quoted herein above. It is the opinion of this Court that in terms with Clause 7.1, the bidder has to acknowledge that he had duly examined the site of work and its surrounding and have obtained all information that may be necessary for preparing of the bid and entering into the contract for construction

¶54

Page No.# 9/11

¶55

of the works. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any reasons on the part of the respondent No. 3 not to countersign the Site Visit Certificate.

¶56

This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the materials on record only mentioned that the petitioners have visited, but there are no evidence viz. photographs taken by the petitioners showing that the petitioners have visited the sites. In the opinion of this Court therefore, merely, by submitting an application without showing evidence that the bidder had duly visited the site by producing the photographs with Geotagged locations, it would make the very Clause 7.1 of the Instructions to Bidders otiose.

¶57

Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that the petitioners are not adverse submitting photographic evidence about their visit to the sites in question before the respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions.

¶58

It is the opinion of this Court that submission of photographic evidence with Geotagged location would suffice for the respondent No. 3 to countersign the Site Verification Certificate on the basis of the photographs containing the Geotagged locations. It is also the opinion of this Court that a reading of Clause 7.1 as quoted above also does not specify the requirement that the photographs would require

¶59

Page No.# 10/11

¶60

the presence of the PWD Officials.

¶61

Considering the above, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

¶62

(i) The petitioners herein are given the liberty to visit the sites, for which, they intend to submit its/his bid(s) and thereupon submit photographic evidence with Geo-tagged locations to the respondent No. 3. Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the same shall be done by tomorrow i.e. 17.09.2025.

¶63

(ii) This Court directs that upon submission of the photographic evidence(s) along with Geotagged locations, the respondent No. 3, who is the concerned Engineer, shall countersign the Site Verification Certificates which have already been submitted by the petitioners on 04.09.2025 before the respondent No. 3. It is observed that the respondent No. 3 shall not insist that the photographs should have been taken in presence of PWD Officials.

¶64

(iii) This Court further observes that after submission of the Site Verification Certificate signed by the petitioners alongwith photographic evidence, the petitioners would be estopped for taking any plea at a later stage that the site in question was not

¶65

Page No.# 11/11

¶66

conducive for carrying out the work in question.

¶67

Before parting with the record, this Court, however, makes it clear that this Court had not decided anything as regards the eligibility of the petitioners in both the writ petitions in respect to the Detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.08.2025.

¶68

A copy of the instant judgment be furnished to Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who shall duly intimate the respondent No. 3 about the present directions.

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Comparing Assistant

Sri Utpal Baishya v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Utpal Baishya v. the State of Assam and 2 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

Nandadhar Kalita Vs Harmeet Singh, IPS

Ajitav Choudhury Vs Mukut Phukan and Anr.

Biswajit Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S Unique Traders Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs Kamalesh Surana

Smti Ambuja Singh Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.