WA/332/2026 of MD SEHNOWAZ AMIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. on 8 September 2026

1. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BASISTHA GUWAHATI ASSAM-781029 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALBARI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION NALBARI ASSAM-78133 For the Appellant(s) : Md. S. Hoque, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M. Das, Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

09.09.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Md. S. Hoque, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources

Department. By the present appeal, challenge has been mounted on the common judgment and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.2695/2026 and WP(C) No.2936/2026. The Water Resources Department of the Government of Assam had floated a tender inviting bids for construction of embankment on R/B of river Buradia under Nalbari Water Resources Division. The estimated value of the tender was approximately Rs.800.00 lakhs. The appellant and two others had participated in the tender but the appellant came out successful and responsive technically and financially. He was declared as L-1 bidder. However, when no Letter of Acceptance was issued for the work under the project (when the Department had issued a Letter of Acceptance of another connected work under the same tender), the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C) No.2695/2026. In the afore-noted writ petition, vide order dated 22.05.2026, the authorities were restrained from allotting the work to any other bidder, with a clarification that the work could be allotted to the appellant, if the Department was satisfied with his credentials. Md. S. Hoque, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that during the continuance of the interim order, referred to above, a tender cancellation notice was issued by the respondent authorities on 27.05.2026, citing expiry of the bid validity period on 06.04.2026. Thereafter, the appellant again preferred WP(C) No.2936/2026 challenging the cancellation of the tender. In that case also, an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the authorities from proceeding with a fresh tender for the same work. The respondents thereafter by filing a detailed affidavit before the Writ Court explained that the tender was cancelled because of the expiry of the bid validity and non-finalisation of the tender process and also for a report by the Executive Engineer regarding severe bank erosion at Puranipam. This was contested by the appellant before the Writ Court explaining that the erosion report was dated nearly six weeks after the expiry of the validity of the tender and that the delay in finalizing the tender was occasioned because of the inaction on the part of the Department. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that there were other measures available to the Department which were deliberately avoided and a drastic decision of cancelling the entire tender was taken. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the Writ Court was that the tender was cancelled for the reason of helping the L-2 bidder. There was, it was also argued, no compliance of the provisions contained in Section 26(3) of the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017

and thus, the action of cancelling the tender was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it also impinged severely on the legitimate expectations of the appellant having come out successful in the financial evaluation. It appears that the writ petitions preferred by the appellant were dismissed by a common judgment impugned in the present appeal, wherein it was held that there could be no judicial review by way of interfering with the decision of cancellation as the Tendering Authority possessed the necessary expertise on explicable grounds. The reasons assigned by the Department in the affidavit before the Writ Court were logical and highly acceptable and could not have been called unreasonable or irrational. That apart, the appellant as L-1 bidder did not have any vested right of having the work allotted to him. The insistence of the appellant that the entire process was delayed for favouring the L-2 bidder is not correct for the reason that there is complete lack of mala fides. We say so for the reason that the appellant was given another work under the same NIT. Thus, for good reasons the challenge of the appellant could not be sustained before the Writ Court. We wholly agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. It would be open for the appellant to participate in the fresh tender at any time if that is issued. The present appeal stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant