M/S Jinku Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

¶1

Page No. 1/12

¶2

GAHC010047502024

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:2006

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

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

¶6

Writ Petition (C) no. 1310/2024

¶7

M/s Jinku Enterprise, Regd. Office Ward No-6, P.S.- North Lakhimpur, Dist.- Lakhimpur, Assam, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mohiuddin Ahmed, Age- 56 yrs, S/o- Late Amiruddin Ahmed.

¶8

………………Petitioner

¶9

- Versus -

¶10

The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Handloom, Textile and Sericulture Deptt., Dispur, Guwahati – 781006.

¶11

The Director, Directorate of Handloom and Textiles, Assam, GNB Road, Ambari, Guwahati – 781001.

¶12

M/s Arunodoi Udyog, Kaikara, Patidarrang, Mangaldai, Dist.- Darrang, Assam, Pin – 784125.

¶13

M/s B.R. Textiles, Dakarghat Bye-Pass, Dist.- Nagaon, Assam, Pin – 782003.

¶14

M/s Baruah Timber Depot and Suppliers, Kaikara, Patidarrang, Mangaldai, Dist.- Darrang, Assam, Pin – 784125.

¶15

M/s Jimachaya Industries, Dakhingaon, Kahilipara, Guwahati, Dist.- Kamrup [M], Pin – 781019.

¶16

Page No. 2/12

¶17

M/s Maa Sley House, Chamata, Dist.- Nalbari, Assam, Pin – 781306.

¶18

Manoj Bah Bet Udyog, Ward No-12, Hajo Road, Dist.Nalbari, Assam, Pin – 781102.

¶19

M/s Sipini Bhandar, Municipality Market, Barpeta Road, Dist.- Barpeta, Assam, Pin – 781315.

¶20

M/s Palmarian Enterprise, Dergaon Town, Ward No-2, Near SBI, Dist.- Golaghat, Assam, Pin – 785614.

¶21

M/s Popular Furniture and Weaving Industries, Nilbagan, Dist.- Hojai, Assam, Pin – 782445.

¶22

M/s Ranu Industries, Rongajan Chariali, Kuruka, Morongi, Dist.- Golaghat, Assam, Pin – 78570.

¶23

………………. Respondents

¶24

Advocates :

¶25

Petitioner : Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. R. Dhar, Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile Department, Government of Assam. Respondent nos. 3 to 12 : XXXX Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.02.2026

¶26

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No

¶27

Page No. 3/12

¶28

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes

¶29

BEFORE

¶30

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶31

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner assailing a decision taken by the Technical Evaluation Committee on 22.02.2024 in connection with a bidding process initiated by an e-Tender Notice dated 11.01.2024 in so far as the Technical Bid of the petitioner is concerned. The Technical Evaluation Committee by its decision dated 22.02.2024 had inter alia disqualified the petitioner on the ground that the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was not conformity with Clause 13[p] of the Bidding Document.

¶32

By an e-Tender Notice published by the respondent no. 2, bids were invited in two-bids [Technical Bid and Financial Bid] system through e-Procurement system for ‘Empanelment of Manufacturers/Suppliers for supply of Handloom & Handloom Accessories to the beneficiaries under various schemes of Government of India and Government of Assam’, implemented by the Directorate of Handloom & Textiles, Assam. In the Bidding Document, the last date of submission of bids was mentioned and the manufacturers/suppliers were directed to submit their technical and financial bids on-line as per the time schedule.

¶33

The petitioner has claimed that he is in the business of production and supply of handloom & handloom accessories and he has experience of supplying those products to various Government agencies and has gathered experience in the said field. The petitioner has further stated that it has been registered as a ‘Micro Enterprise’ with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [MSME], Government of India and it has an Udyam Registration Certificate

¶34

Page No. 4/12

¶35

issued to that effect with validity as on the date of the e-Tender Notice as well as on the last date of submission of bids. The Udyam Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner has listed the products which the petitioner deals in and the products mentioned in the Udyam Registration Certificate are some of the items for which empanelment has been sought by the e-Tender Notice.

¶36

In the Bidding Document to the e-Tender Notice, the qualification/eligibility criteria of the bidders and the documentary proof needed for the purpose of qualification / eligibility criteria were laid down in Clause 3 thereof. For ready reference, Clause 3 of the Bidding Document are reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶37

Qualification / eligibility Criteria of the bidders :

¶38

Following documentary proof is needed :

¶39

3[a] Manufacturers/Suppliers should be a registered manufacturer of Handloom and accessories or authorize supplier of the manufacturers of the relevant goods. The bidder should state in what capacity he / she is participating in the bidding process as a manufacturer / supplier. The bidders in case of Registered under MSME, he / she should submit the up-to-date Udyam Registration certificate from the competent authority and clearly mention that he / she is a manufacturer of Handloom & accessories.

¶40

[b] The average annual financial turnovers during the last three years i.e. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 should not be less than Rs. 50.00 Lakh. The audited / certified balance sheet should be submitted along with IT return files for the years as stated above.

¶41

3[c] The Manufacturers / Suppliers should have experience of supply of Handlooms & Handloom Accessories of an aggregated value of

¶42

Page No. 5/12

¶43

minimum Rs. 10.00 lakh [Rupees Ten Lakh] only during the last three financial years. The supply completion certificate issued by the competent authority should be submitted as proof of experience.

¶44

3[d] The successful bidders will have to exhibit sample of each item after opening of financial bid and before sign of deed of agreement, in the premises of the Directorate of Handloom & Textiles, Assam, Ambari, Guwahati-1 at their own cost.

¶45

3[e] Relaxation for Micro & Small Enterprises [MSES] :

¶46

As per the Government Policy Circular No. 1[2] [1] 2016-MA, dated 10/03/2016 issued by O/o Development Commissioner [MSME], Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India, Micro and Small Enterprises [MSEs] are exempted from prior turnover and experience in all public procurements subject to meeting of quality and technical specification. The bidders need to submit the up-to-date copy of Certificate of registration for Micro or Small Enterprises [Udyam Registration Certificate] issued by Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [MSME], Govt. of India . Moreover, the bidders must be genuine manufacturer of handlooms that clearly mention in the Udyam Registration Certificate. In case of MSE payment of EMD and bid cost are exempted as per Govt. of India OM, No.F.No.1[3]/2018-MA, Pt-III, dt. - 27-10-2022.

¶47

3[f] Relaxation for Start-up companies :

¶48

As per the Office Memorandum No.F.20/2/2014-PPd[Pt.] dated 25/06/2016 issued by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Start-up companies shall be exempted from prior

¶49

Page No. 6/12

¶50

turnover and prior experience in all public procurements subject to meeting of quality and technical specifications. The bidders need to submit the up-to-date copy of Start-up India Registration Certificate issued by Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India.

¶51

3[g] The Manufacturer/Supplier needs to submit a declaration against the particular items, for which the Manufacturer/Supplier will quote the rate. Any other items not included in the declaration shall not be considered for evaluation.

¶52

A pre-bid meeting was held on 18.01.2024 and the meeting was chaired by the respondent no. 2. After deliberation on the issues with all the manufacturers/suppliers, it was recommended that the work completion certificate for a minimum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- only during the last three financial years from the competent authority as experience of supply of looms and accessories in different departments of Central Government/State Government should be submitted.

¶53

The Technical Evaluation Committee for the purpose of evaluation of the technical bids of the bidders held one of its Meetings on 22.02.2024. A total of twenty-six nos. of bidders participated in the bidding process. The technical bids of all the twenty-six participant bidders were opened and evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee on 22.02.2024. Upon evaluation, the Technical Evaluation Committee declared technical bids of ten nos. of bidders as qualified and technical bids of sixteen nos. of bidders as disqualified. The petitioner was one of the bidders, who were adjudged disqualified at the technical bid evaluation stage. The Technical Evaluation Committee in its Minutes, recorded on 22.02.2024, had further decided that the financial bids of only the ten nos. of technically qualified bidders would be opened on 04.03.2024.

¶54

Page No. 7/12

¶55

Aggrieved by the reason shown for disqualification of his technical bid, the petitioner submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 2 on 26.02.2024. The petitioner represented that for an MSE Unit, there was no requirement of meeting the turnover criterion and the experience criterion, as mentioned in Clauses 3[b] and 3[c] of the Bidding Document, in view of submission of a valid Udyam Registration Certificate by the petitioner with its technical bid. As no response was received from the respondent no. 2 on the said Representation, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.

¶56

I have heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile Department, Government of Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶57

Though the respondent nos. 3 – 12 were duly served with the notices, save and except the respondent nos. 6 & 10 the other respondents viz. the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 choose not to appear and contest the present proceeding. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 10 is found absent today on call.

¶58

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from a reading of Clause 3[a] and Clause 3[e] of the Bidding Document together, it is evidently clear that an MSE Unit like the petitioner, who is a ‘Micro Unit’, need not have to meet the turnover criterion and the experience criterion in the bidding process initiated by the e-Tender Notice. The reason shown for disqualification of the technical bid of the petitioner by resorting to Clause 13[p] of the Bidding Document is clearly arbitrary. He has further submitted that in case of two similarly situated bidders, this Court has already held that by virtue of Clause 3[e] of the e-Tender Notice and the Bidding Document, the MSEs were exempted from fulfilling the prior turnover and experience criteria from all public procurements, more particularly, in the bidding process under reference,

¶59

Page No. 8/12

¶60

in view of incorporation of the Clause 3[e] on the basis of the Government Policy Circular dated 10.03.2016.

¶61

Mr. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile Department appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has supported the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee stating as per Clause 13[p], a work completion certificate meeting the limited criterion was a requirement. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner had submitted a work completion certificate which had value must below the prescribed criterion. He has, however, fairly submitted that in case of two similarly situated bidders, this Court has held that Clause 3[e] of the Bidding Document had exempted an MSE Unit from meeting the turnover and experience criteria qua Clause 13[p].

¶62

As per Clause 3[a], a bidder who claims to be a manufacturer/supplier should be a registered manufacturer of handloom and accessories or authorised supplier of the manufacturers of the relevant goods. A bidder in case he is registered under the MSME, Government of India then he must submit an up-todate Udyam Certificate from the competent authority wherein it should be clearly mentioned that he is a manufacturer of handloom and accessories. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of an Udyam Registration Certificate as a Micro Enterprise having validity at the time of submission of bid/last date of submission of the bid. In the Udyam Registration Certificate, certain products which the petitioner deals in are also listed.

¶63

As per Clause 3[b], the average annual financial turnover during the last three years, that is, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 should not be less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and audited/certified balance sheet with IT Return Files for the years concerned should be a part of the Technical Bid of the bidder. As per Clause 3[c], a bidder as a manufacturer / supplier should have experience of supply on handlooms and handloom accessories of a minimum aggregate value of Rs. 10,00,000/- during the last three financial years and a supply completion

¶64

Page No. 9/12

¶65

certificate issued by the competent authority as a proof of experience had to be part of the technical bid of the bidder. However, as per Clause 3[e], Micro and Small Enterprises [MSEs] were exempted both from the prior turnover criterion and the experience criterion in the empanelment process under reference subject to meeting quality and technical specification. A bidder claiming exemption as an MSE Unit was required to submit an up-to-date copy of the Certificate of Registration as Micro and Small Enterprises [Udyam Registration Certificate] issued by the MSME, Government of India. The bidders must be genuine manufacturers of handloom and there should be clear mention to that effect in the Udyam Registration Certificate.

¶66

In Clause 13, the documents required to be submitted in the Technical Bid online were mentioned with the condition that in case any of the documents were not submitted either with the hardcopy or online, the bid would be rejected.

¶67

In Clause 13[p], it was mentioned that a Work Completion Certificate for a minimum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- only during last financial years from the competent authority as experience of supply of handloom and accessories in different departments of Central Government/State Government should be submitted. The petitioner had submitted few experience certificates for the purpose of establishing that it had a good track record. The documents submitted in support of the petitioner’s experience did not meet the threshold criteria of work completion to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Technical Evaluation Committee had, however, taken note of the said fact and in the affidavit made a mention of the same.

¶68

Having analysed the sub-clauses of Clause 3 and Clause 13[p], it is evident that in case of a bidder having a valid Udyam Registration Certificate, there is no requirement of meeting either the turnover criterion or the experience criterion. As per Clause 3[a] and Clause 3[e], the only requirement for such a bidder is to

¶69

Page No. 10/12

¶70

submit a valid Udyam Registration Certificate for handloom and handloom accessories.

¶71

In W.P.[C] no. 4290/2024 [ M/s Daibaki Enterprise and another vs. the State of Assam and others ], decided on 04.12.2024, the same clauses of the Bidding Document, that is, Clause 3 and Clause 13[p] as involved herein, came for consideration. The question that arose therein as to whether an MSE Unit in view of Clause 13[p] can be held to be exempted from meeting the turnover criterion and the experience criterion if the MSE Unit is in possession of a valid Udyam Registration Certificate. Upon consideration, the Coordinate Bench has held that the MSEs are exempted under Clause 3[e] of the Bidding Document from submitting average annual turnover in terms of Clause 3[b]. It has been observed that even if a participant bidder MSE would submit or would not submit documents pertaining to turnover, they being exempt from having any prior turnover or experience in all public procurements, the bid submitted by such bidders without turnover would have to be considered to be valid, subject to the MSEs meeting the quality and technical specifications and submitting upto-date copy of the Udyam Registration Certificate/UDIN number for the MSE. Non-submission of annual turnover certificate as well as work completion certificate meeting the threshold of Rs. 10,00,000/- cannot be a ground for disqualification of such an MSE bidder’s technical bid as they would have to be treated as additional documents which are not required for scrutiny in view of Clause 3[e]. It has been conclusively held that in view of the exemption Clause 3[e], an MSE bidder is not required to submit any document as per Clause 13[p] of the Bidding Document.

¶72

Having examined the relevant clauses and in view of the discussions made above with the reasons assigned and the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in M/s Daibaki Enterprise [supra], this Court is of the clear view that the reason assigned for disqualifying the petitioner at the technical bid evaluation stage resorting to Clause 13[p] is clearly arbitrary and therefore, cannot stand the

¶73

Page No. 11/12

¶74

scrutiny of law. Therefore, the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee to declare the technical bid of the petitioner as disqualified on 22.02.2024 is set aside and quashed.

¶75

In the e-Tender Notice, it was mentioned that the technical bids should be opened by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Empanelment of manufacturers/suppliers for supply of handloom and accessories should be considered from the qualified technical bidders. The financial bids of only the technically qualified bidders would be opened by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Such evaluation would be done for each item for the price schedule BOQ separately item-wise.

¶76

As per Clause 1[g] of the Bidding Document, the empanelment list and rate of items would be valid for a minimum one year with a provision for extending the same for second year or more by the Directorate of Handloom and Textile, Assam, subject to consent of the suppliers and satisfactory performance and receipt of permission from State Level Project Committee [SLPC]. After opening of the financial bids, a list of empanelled bidders were notified by the Directorate of Handloom and Textile, Government of Assam on 15.07.2024.

¶77

Mr. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile Department has submitted on the basis of instruction received vide an Office Letter bearing no. DHTP.90/2023/pt/340 dated 07.02.2026 that the validity of empanelment of Manufacturers/Suppliers has been extended upto 15.07.2026 as per an Order dated 15.07.2024 with the approval of the State Level Project Committee [SLPC]. He has further submitted that the Directorate has not yet decided for further extension of the existing empanelment of Manufacturers/ Suppliers beyond the current validity period.

¶78

It is directed that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Technical Evaluation Committee shall now open the financial bid of the petitioner within a

¶79

Page No. 12/12

¶80

period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this Order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2. If upon evaluation of the financial bid of the petitioner, the petitioner is found to have met all the other criteria set forth in the Bidding Document, then appropriate decision should be taken immediately thereafter for empanelment of the petitioner till the validity of the empanelment list, that is, 15.07.2026

¶81

With the above observation made and directions given above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

¶82

Digitally signed by Ananta Konwar Date: 2026.02.12 16:28:42 +05'30'

¶83

JUDGE

¶84

Comparing Assistant

M/S Jinku Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jinku Enterprise v. the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Shyam Enterprise Vs the State of Assam

Hitesh Ch Roy Vs Anurag Goel, IAS

Charan Borgayary Vs Anurag Goel, IAS and Anr.

Santanu Barkatoky and 5 Ors. Vs Assam Pharmacy Council and 5 Ors.

Mrinal Das Vs Jay Shivani and 2 Ors.

Panchgram Fishery Cooperative Society Limited and Anr. Vs the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and 6 Ors.