‘No state of war with Bangladesh’: Tripura High Court slams govt for bypassing lowest bidder in Rs 6.58 crore water project

The order added that obviously, the so-called situation in Bangladesh had no relevance to the decision taken about the award of the subject tender to another contractor, and is being used to “draw wool over the eyes of the court” and somehow justify the “arbitrary” and “illegal” decision to disqualify the petitioner and award the contract to another contractor.

“The decision to reject the tender of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the high court stated.

Embankment at India-Bangladesh border

• The case centered on an e-tender issued in January 2025 for the “raising and strengthening of embankments,” and anti-erosion works in the Unakoti District, valued at approximately Rs. 6.58 crore.
• The petitioner, Abu Sufian, emerged as the lowest bidder with a quotation of Rs 3.10 crore, roughly 52.89 per cent below the estimated cost.
• However, the Public Works Department (PWD) rejected his bid and instead awarded the contract to S N Bhattacharjee and Sons, whose quotation was Rs 83.50 lakh higher than the petitioner’s.
• The state defended its decision by questioning the authenticity of the petitioner’s Class-1(A) registration, noting a “meteoric jump” in his classification from Class-IV(A) within two years.
• They further argued that there was a national emergency considering that the country of Bangladesh was on the other side of Kailashahar and the said country started raising and strengthening their embankment, which was posing a serious threat to the existence of people of Kailashahar through anticipated submergence in the ensuing rainy season.

‘Petitioner was lower bidder’

• The admitted fact is that the petitioner was the lower bidder, and one of the respondents was the higher bidder.
  The petitioner’s bid was 52.89 per cent below the estimated cost, while the respondent’s bid was 40.21 per cent below the estimated cost.
• If the state had accepted the bid of the petitioner and awarded the work to him, the state would have undoubtedly saved Rs 83.50 lakh, which was the difference in the financial bid between that of the petitioner and the respondent.
• The respondent’s quotation was Rs 83.50 lakh more than that of the petitioner.
• Undoubtedly, acceptance of the bid of the petitioner by the respondents would have caused considerable savings to the public exchequer.
• The questions to be considered are whether the process adopted by the state for awarding work to the second bidder, instead of the petitionerproper and justified and in the public interest?

• Admittedly, both the petitioner and respondent had quoted much below the estimated cost as per the Schedule of Rates-2023.

‘Eligible for contract’

• Persons like the petitioner, having Class-1(A) contractor registration in other states, such as Assam, were also eligible and not disqualified.
• Along with its bid, the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the additional chief engineer, PWD(R and B), Assam, that it possesses a Class-1(A) category contractor’s registration in that state.
  There is thus no scope for any doubt being entertained by the state as to the petitioner being a Class-1(A) contractor.
• Even if the CPWD Rules for Enlistment of Contractors, 2021, did say that a contractor is permitted to have enlistment in more than one category, but not in more than one class in the same category.
• This is not being rigidly followed because Assam had given him a Class 1(A) contractor’s registration.
• There is also no prohibition in the tender that a person having registration in more than one class in the same category is ineligible.
• Reliance on this Rule by the state is a clear afterthought to somehow, or the other, justify the disqualification of the petitioner.