Tender | Common Site Photograph By Bidders Not Proof Of Cartelisation; Integrity Commitment Must Be Breached: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court while refusing to interfere with the award of a Public Works Department contract for construction of a Circuit House at Udalguri, held that an allegation of cartelisation raised by an unsuccessful bidder based solely on a common photograph enclosed with site-visit certificates of two competing bidders cannot be accepted in the absence of any concrete material showing breach of the integrity commitment under the tender.Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, pressing over the case, observed, “Even if the altered argument is taken into consideration that the two representatives of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to have featured in the common photograph, the same, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be construed to be any violation of the Integrity Commitment. To accept such submission would be far-fetched and would be in the realm of imagination.”“Unless, any concrete materials can be demonstrated, this Court would be loath in interfering with matters pertaining to allotment of contracts. This Court has also taken into consideration that site visit by the prospective bidders was a mandatory requirement and there is no stipulation that such visit cannot be made on the same date or time by different bidders. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that only because the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to be bidders in various other contracts, a cartel can be presumed.”As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner participated in the tender floated by the Public Works Department for construction of a Circuit House at Udalguri on EPC mode. Upon opening of the financial bids, respondent no. 3 was declared the lowest bidder (L1), respondent no. 4 the second lowest bidder (L2), and the petitioner the third lowest bidder (L3). The tender conditions stipulated that site visit by the bidders was mandatory.The petitioner questioned the tender process alleging violation of Article 2(2)(b) of the Notice Inviting Tender on the ground that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had acted in concert. The allegation of cartelisation was sought to be demonstrated on the basis that both respondent nos. 3 and 4 had submitted site inspection certificates enclosing a common photograph. The petitioner also referred to participation of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in other tenders to suggest collusive conduct.Examining the tender conditions, the Court first noted that while site visit was mandatory, there was no requirement to submit photographs at all. The Court extracted the relevant clause:Para 15 (Clause 6.1):“The bidder is advised to visit the site of work mandatory, at his own cost, and examined it and its surroundings to collect all information that he considers necessary for proper assessment of the prospective assignment. Site visit by the bidder is mandatory as the site is full of number of existing structures.”The Court observed that the initial interim stay had been granted on an incorrect factual premise that the same person had represented both bidders during site inspection. Clarifying this, the Court said, “It becomes apparent that on such incorrect submission the interim order of stay was passed.”On the allegation of cartelization, the Court took note of the stand of the Department that there was no proof of exchange of confidential information, coordination in bid pricing or any action to restrict competitiveness, and observed that no material had been placed to demonstrate otherwise.The Court further recorded that the tender conditions did not contain any stipulation prohibiting bidders from visiting the site on the same date or at the same time. The Court also noted that mere participation of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in other tenders could not, by itself, give rise to an inference of cartel formation.On this basis, the Court held, “… no case for interference is made out and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.”“The interim order stands vacated which otherwise also appears to have been passed on an incorrect submission made on behalf of the petitioner,” the Court concluded.The Court, while dismissing the petition, restrained itself from imposing costs.Case Title: M/s Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Assam & Ors.Case Number: WP(C) No. 6333 of 2025Click Here To Read Judgement

Tender | Common Site Photograph By Bidders Not Proof Of Cartelisation; Integrity Commitment Must Be Breached: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags