Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.06.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 24 June, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:537
Serial No. 1
Supp. 1 List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 272 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.06.2025
M/s Tribeni Constructions Ltd.,
a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered office at Tribeni Commercial
Complex, 2nd Floor, G.S.Road,
Ulubari, Guwahati- 781007, represented
by its authorized representative.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
the Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Urban Affairs Department,
Shillong.
2. Director, Directorate of Urban Affairs,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S.Sen, Adv.
Mr. M.L.Nongpiur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.M.Tripathi, Adv. with
Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA
Ms. R.Colney, GA.
1
2025:MLHC:537
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. A.M.Tripathi, learned counsel with Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, learned
GA is present on behalf of both the respondents, as such, no further notice
is called for.
4. The grievance of the writ petitioner as projected, is with Clause 3.3
of Section I of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB), dated 15-05-2025 issued
by the respondents for construction of a Model Secretariat at Tura, West
Garo Hills, wherein it is provided that a bidder whose proprietor/ partner/
director/ organization having any FIR/ police case/ CBI case/ any ongoing
cases due to corrupt or unethical practices during tenders/execution of
contracts, or is/was barred from participating in the tenders/during execution
of contract in any Central/State Government Organization etc., will be
barred from submitting its bid.
2
2025:MLHC:537
5. Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Clause
as inserted in the Instructions to Bidders is offensive, inasmuch as, the same
has prejudiced the writ petitioner, who though a proceeding is pending
against him, has not been convicted and furthermore, charges are yet to be
framed in the matter. He further submits that he may be allowed to at least
submit his bid and the same be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
6. Mr. A.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has
drawn the attention of this Court to page 22 of the writ petition and has
submitted that the said tender i.e. Invitation For Bids had been floated since
15th May, 2025 and the last date and time for receipt of the bids is tomorrow
the 25th June, 2025 at 14.30 hours. He submits that if the petitioner was
genuinely aggrieved, they would have approached this Court at a much
earlier date, but however, has chosen to come at this late hour, which will
jeopardise the entire process if any orders are passed on the prayer made. He
submits that in view of the delay and also the fact that the petitioner has
never preferred even a representation or petition, or attended the pre-bid
meeting to question the tender conditions, no interference is called for and
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that as
submitted, the tender conditions contained at Clause 3.3. bars a bidder who
3
2025:MLHC:537
has a criminal case/ FIR/ police case/ CBI case or any ongoing cases due to
corrupt practices from participating in the bid. However, it is also noted that
the tender or ITB has been floated as far back as 15th May, 2025, and the
writ petitioner has filed this petition only today itself and sought for urgent
listing which the Court has allowed and as such, the matter is being
considered. On consideration of the entire matter, though the tender
condition is questionable as to its appropriateness, the very fact that the writ
petitioner has never questioned the same at an earlier stage, nor approached
this Court well within time, will surely go against it if the writ petition is
entertained, or any order passed at this stage as the same will jeopardise the
tender process, a project that has been initiated in public interest by the State
respondents.
8. The interim prayer made for allowing the writ petitioner to participate
in the process therefore is rejected, and the writ petition is dismissed.
9. Matter accordingly stands closed and disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 4
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.06.25 02:45:20 IST