Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2414/2026 of PURBANCHAL BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 10 May 2026
GAHC010082292026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2414/2026 PURBANCHAL BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 2, SEWALI PATH, F.A. AHMED NAGAR, SIXMILE, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
GAHC010082292026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2414/2026
PURBANCHAL BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ANR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 2, SEWALI PATH, F.A.
AHMED NAGAR, SIXMILE, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. BHASKAR
GOSWAMI
2: BHASKAR GOSWAMI
S/O MR. AMBIKA PAD GOSWAMI
R/O BARGAON
DIV- RANGIA
P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPL. SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781026, ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS)
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003
ASSAM
3:THE CHAIRMAN
BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS)
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003
ASSAM
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT
BONGAIGAON DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVN.
BONGAIGAON
5:M/S MACROCOSM BUILDERS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.B. ROAD
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
PIN-781301
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI DEBADIB DAS
6:SRIMANTA SANKARDEV INFRACON PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT S.S. ROAD
WARD NO. 3
ABHAYAPURI
P.O. AND P.S.- ABHAYAPURI
DIST- BONGAIGAON
PIN-783384
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI RUDRA KUMAR PATHA
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. TJ Mahanta, Senior Advocate Ms. P Sarma Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam &
Standing Counsel, PWD
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
11.05.2026
The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner’s bid to be technically non-responsive vide the communication dated 16.02.2026 and that too without assigning any reason.
2. This Court had enquired with Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam as well as the learned Standing Counsel, PWD as to why the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be technically non-responsive. The learned Standing Counsel, PWD submitted that the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be non-responsive in view of the bid having not been submitted in terms with Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders of the tender document.
3. A perusal of the Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders shows that a detailed evaluation of the technical bids would be carried out on various aspects which included as to whether the technical bid had been properly signed. A copy of the technical evaluation sheet has been provided before this Court which is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’.
4. A copy of the said technical evaluation sheet had also been provided to Mr. TJ Mahanta the learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner.
5. Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner would be well advised to withdraw the instant writ petition and again re-file by challenging the said technical bid evaluation carried out, if so advised.
6. He, however, submits that the withdrawal of the writ petition should not affect the cause of action for which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
7. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands closed on withdrawal.
8. Withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude and/or prejudice the petitioner to again approach this Court, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant