Allegations of Cartelisation Must Be Supported by Concrete Evidence: Gauhati HC

The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati, in the case of M/s Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine Gau 103), decided on January 9, 2026, reaffirmed that courts will not interfere with public tender processes on the basis of conjecture or speculative allegations of cartelisation, and that concrete material demonstrating collusion is a prerequisite for judicial intervention.

The tender was floated by the Public Works Department (PWD), Buildings, Assam on Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) mode. The petitioner participated and emerged as the third-lowest bidder (L3), while respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were declared L1 and L2, respectively. The petitioner challenged the process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, alleging that the L1 and L2 bidders had formed a cartel in violation of Article 2(2)(b) of the Notice Inviting Tender, which prohibits undisclosed agreements restricting competitiveness. The principal basis of the allegation was that both bidders had submitted the same photograph evidencing site inspection, suggesting collusion.

The Court examined Clause 6.1 of the “Information and Guidelines for Bidders” and noted that while site inspection was mandatory, there was no requirement for bidders to visit separately or any bar on multiple bidders inspecting the site simultaneously. The tender documents also did not mandate submission of photographs, requiring only certification of a site visit. Accepting the Department’s affidavit, the Bench recorded that both bidders had independently executed Integrity Agreements and that the Tender Committee found no breach of tender conditions, exchange of confidential information, coordinated pricing, or restriction of competition, none of which was rebutted by the petitioner with substantive evidence.

The Court held that cartelisation cannot be inferred from a shared photograph or joint site visit in the absence of concrete evidence such as coordinated pricing, identical bids, or exchange of confidential information. It also rejected the contention that participation of the same bidders in multiple tenders indicates collusion, noting that it may equally reflect competitive bidding.

The Court reiterated that tender evaluation lies primarily within the domain of the employer and technical committees. Judicial review is confined to examining arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality in the decision-making process, and courts must exercise restraint to avoid substituting their own assessment for that of procurement authorities.

The Court also took note that the interim stay had been obtained on an incorrect factual submission and cautioned against unwarranted interference in public works projects, which can delay infrastructure delivery. While refraining from imposing costs, the Bench reiterated that challenges to tender processes must be responsibly pursued and supported by substantive proof.

Dismissing the writ petition and vacating the interim order, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that allegations of cartelisation in public tenders must rest on concrete evidence and not on conjecture or circumstantial assumptions, and that courts will not derail public projects in the absence of demonstrable illegality.