JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of all the respondents. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who is also the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Government of Assam. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Cancellation Corrigendum dated 19.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, “the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum”) issued by the respondent No. 4 and further seeking appropriate directions upon the respondents to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner in respect to the work of “Construction of Range Office-cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur”. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Majuli (T) Division, Garamur issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 18.01.2025 inviting bids from eligible bidders for construction of Range Office-cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur as well as for RCC building (Forest Guard/ Game Watcher/Grade-IV Quarter and Anti-poaching Camp). 4. The present writ petition relates to construction of Range Office- cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur wherein the estimated cost was mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender at Rs. 46,98,000/-. It is specifically mentioned in the said Notice Inviting Tender and, more particularly, at Clause 2 of Section I that the bidding would be conducted through Open Competitive Bidding method and the procedures as specified in “ The Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017” (for short, “the Act of 2017”) and “The Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2021” would be followed. 5. The petitioner along with various other bidders participated in the said tender process for the construction of Range Office-cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur. All the 6 (six) bidders including the petitioner were found to be technically responsive. The petitioner's bid was the lowest having quoted an amount of Rs. 38,51,999.99/-. This was duly intimated to all concerned in the E-Portal of Assam Tenders dated 29.03.2025. The petitioner thereupon waited that the work order would be issued to the petitioner. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 19.05.2025, the tender process in respect to the construction of Range Office-cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur as well as the tender for construction of Ground Floor with provision of three storied RCC building, Forest guard, Game Watcher, Grade-IV Quarter and other quarter were cancelled. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 19.05.2025, the tender process in respect to the construction of Range Office-cum-Range Office Quarter, Garamur as well as the tender for construction of Ground Floor with provision of three storied RCC building, Forest guard, Game Watcher, Grade-IV Quarter and other quarter were cancelled. There were no reasons provided for issuance of the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum and the petitioner therefore being aggrieved had approached this Court challenging the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum by filing the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as already aforestated. 6. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 23.06.2025 passed an interim order thereby restraining the respondents from issuing a fresh tender in respect to the tender in question. 7. The records reveal that this Court issued notice on 22.07.2025. On the said date, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department, Government of Assam in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 (for short, “the Rules of 2020”) whereby it is stipulated as to what steps are required to be taken if the bid value is below 10% to the estimated cost of the project. 8. The record further reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 4. From a perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is revealed that on the basis of a communication issued dated 10.05.2023 by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Executive Officer, State CAMPA whereby it is mentioned that the limit for financial bid value shall be between minus (-) 10% to plus (+)10% of the internal estimate and any bid value beyond the said limit shall be outrightly rejected at the time of opening of the financial bid. It is therefore the case of the respondents in the instant writ petition that as the bid value of the petitioner was Rs. 38,51,999.99/- against the estimated work value of Rs. 46.98 lakhs, the entire tender process was cancelled taking into account that the petitioner was the lowest bidder. It is specifically mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner's bid was 18.01% less than the estimated amount as per the funding Agency, CAMPA guidelines. 9. 38,51,999.99/- against the estimated work value of Rs. 46.98 lakhs, the entire tender process was cancelled taking into account that the petitioner was the lowest bidder. It is specifically mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner's bid was 18.01% less than the estimated amount as per the funding Agency, CAMPA guidelines. 9. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply wherein the petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the statements made in the present writ petition and additionally inserted pleadings in connection with the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department of the Government of Assam in exercise of the powers under Rule 30(5) of the Rules of 2020. 10. Taking into account the said aspect, this Court vide an order dated 10.11.2025 requested the learned Standing Counsel of the Finance Department to apprise this Court, as to whether, the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance Department shall override the communication dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. 11. Pursuant to the said order being passed, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department had placed before this Court an instruction issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (Establishment-B) Department dated 21.11.2025. The contents of the said communication dated 21.11.2025 is relevant and as such the same is reproduced herein under: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE (ESTABLISHMENT-B) DEPARTMENT BLOCK ‘F’ 2 ND FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 FEB.No. 722898/96 21-11-2025 From The Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Finance (Estt-B) Department, Dispur To Shri Rajib Borpujari, Learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department House No. 19-A, Near Srimantapur L.P. School, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781032 Subject: Comments of the Finance Department in WP(C) No. 3353/2025 Ref: Your letter no. FD/DS/2025/764 dated 12.11.2025 Sir, Please refer to your request for comments in connection with WP(C) No. 3353/2025, in which the Hon'ble High Court has sought clarification regarding the Forest Department's instruction issued on 10/05/2023 restricting bid prices to (+/-) 10% of the internal estimate. The Finance Department has examined the matter in light of the Assam Public Procurement Act, the Rules, and the subsequent Notification issued by this Department on 30/07/2024. The (+/-) 10% restriction issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests does not have support under the applicable procurement law or rules. The Finance Department has examined the matter in light of the Assam Public Procurement Act, the Rules, and the subsequent Notification issued by this Department on 30/07/2024. The (+/-) 10% restriction issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests does not have support under the applicable procurement law or rules. The Finance Department's Notification dated 30/07/2024 is the prevailing guideline for handling abnormally low bids and provides for the use of Additional Performance Security where required. It does not approve or allow any fixed percentage cap on bid values. Therefore, rejection of bids based on the (+/-) 10% limit is not in line with the Finance Department's procurement framework. You are requested to apprise the above before the Hon’ble Court on the next date of hearing which is on 02.12.2025. Yours faithfully, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Finance (Esst-B) Department Memo No. FEB.No. 722898/96-A 21.11.2025” 12. Taking into account the above communication, this Court gave an opportunity to Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department to seek instruction as to what steps they are going to take in view of the stand taken by the Finance Department, more particularly, when the Notice Inviting Tender categorically mandated that the procurement would be made in terms with the Act of 2017 as well as the Rules of 2020 and the Notification dated 30.07.2024 was issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Rules of 2020. Accordingly, the present writ petition was fixed today for final disposal. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 13. Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that taking into account the Notification dated 30.07.2024 and also the stand which is taken by the Finance Department, the Respondent Authorities could not have bypassed the Notification dated 30.07.2024 in order to cancel the said tender process and issue the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit the additional performance security which was never asked by the Respondent Authorities. 14. Mr. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit the additional performance security which was never asked by the Respondent Authorities. 14. Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the Notice Inviting Tender categorically mandated that the procurement would be made in terms with the Act of 2017 as well as the Rules of 2020 and under such circumstances, except for reasons other than bona fide, the Respondent Authorities would not have cancelled the said tender process. 15. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who is also the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department submitted that taking into account that the Notice Inviting Tender categorically mandated that the procurement would be made in terms with the Act of 2017 read with the Rules framed therein under, the Respondent Authorities were bound in terms with the Notification dated 30.07.2024 inasmuch as the said Notification has been issued in pursuance to Rule 30(5) of the Rules of 2020. He further submitted that this very aspect of the matter has been duly mentioned in the communication dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department of the Government of Assam. 16. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department, however, submitted that the communication issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Executive Officer, State CAMPA dated 10.05.2023 was holding the field and on the basis thereof the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum was issued. He therefore submitted that as the bid so submitted by the petitioner was 18.01% below the estimated cost mentioned in the tender document, the Respondent Authorities have acted fairly in complying with the communication dated 10.05.2023 and as such submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that prior to issuance of the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum, the Deputy Conservator of Forest issued a communication to the Divisional Forest Officer to revise the Standard Bid Document as per the existing guidelines and proceed to re-tender the work without delay and it is under such circumstances, the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum was issued. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 17. This Court has duly taken note of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 18.01.2025 enclosed to the writ petition. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 17. This Court has duly taken note of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 18.01.2025 enclosed to the writ petition. At Section I Clause 2 of the said Notice Inviting Tender, it is categorically mentioned that the bidding would be conducted through Open Competitive Bidding method by following the procedure as laid down in the Act of 2017 and the Rules of 2021. 18. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department as regards the reason why at Clause 2 of Section I of the Notice Inviting Tender there is a reference to the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2021. 19. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department submitted that the reference made therein is actually to the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 which have been amended as on 2021. 20. Taking into account above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the manner in which the procurement is required to be carried out has to be in terms with the Act of 2017 read with the Rules framed therein under. 21. This Court has further perused the Notice Inviting Tender dated 18.01.2025 and it appears that there is no reference in the said Notice Inviting Tender in respect to a viable rate i.e. plus/minus (+/-) 10% of the internal estimate or even the estimated value and the bids are to be quoted within the said range, failing which, the bids would be rejected. This Court has also duly taken note of the communication issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Executive Officer, State CAMPA dated 10.05.2023, the basis on which the respondents have taken action. A perusal of the said communication reveals that a limit for financial value has to be between minus (-) 10% to plus (+) 10% of the internal estimate. It was further mandated that if any bid is beyond the limit, the bid shall be outrightly rejected at the time of opening of the financial bid. 22. This Court enquired with Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department, as to whether, there is any internal estimate provided in the bid document. 23. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department with all fairness submitted that there is no internal estimate. 22. This Court enquired with Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department, as to whether, there is any internal estimate provided in the bid document. 23. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department with all fairness submitted that there is no internal estimate. What is mentioned therein is the estimated value of the bid in the tender document. 24. Taking into account that there is no mention in the bid document about the rejection of the bid, if a bidder quotes beyond the range of minus (-) 10% and plus (+) 10%, the decision to cancel the tender process on the basis that the petitioner had quoted less than 10% appears to have been done by taking into consideration a hidden criteria resulting in an opaque and non-exercise of power rendering the actions of the respondents unfair and unreasonable. 25. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department of the Government of Assam in exercise of the powers under Rule 30(5) of the Rules of 2020. Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the said Notification being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1.1. If the Bid of the successful Bidder is at a discount of more than the threshold value i.e. 10% below the estimated value put to tender, then the TIA shall seek written clarifications/justification from the bidder for quoting such price, including detailed price analysis of its bid price in relation to scope, schedule, allocation of risks and responsibilities, and any other requirement of the bid document. 1.2. If the TIA is satisfied that the bidder has substantially demonstrated its capability to deliver the contract at the offered price, the TIA shall accept the bid. 1.3. If after evaluating the justification and price analysis, TIA is not satisfied with the clarifications/justifications offered by the bidder for quoting price lower than the threshold value, the TIA shall seek additional performance security to protect against default. 1.4. The amount of additional performance security will be calculated as per the following matrix: 1.5. This additional performance security in para 1.4 above, shall be treated as part of the Performance Security.” 26. 1.4. The amount of additional performance security will be calculated as per the following matrix: 1.5. This additional performance security in para 1.4 above, shall be treated as part of the Performance Security.” 26. From the above quoted Clauses of the Notification dated 30.07.2024, it is seen that the Tender Inviting Authority, who are the respondents in the present case, are required to carry out an exercise if the bid value is below 10% of the estimated value. However, admittedly nothing was done in that regard. The Respondent Authorities merely on the basis of a communication dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Executive Offer, State CAMPA has cancelled the entire tender process. It is also seen from the document dated 21.11.2025, the contents of which have already been quoted herein above that the said Notification dated 30.07.2024 was binding upon the Respondent Authorities. Therefore, it appears that the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum appears to be an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. 27. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. M/S. Oasys Cybernatics Private Limited reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2536 wherein the Supreme Court dealing with the question as regards the cancellation of tender observed that when contractual rights are absent, the State's administrative discretion in rescinding or cancelling is not unfettered, it remains subject to constitutional discipline, particularly the requirement that the State action must not be arbitrary, unreasonable or actuated by mala fides. 28. Taking into account that in the instant case the reasons, for which, the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum was issued is contrary to the bid document inasmuch as the bid document did not contain any such terms and conditions and is based upon a hidden criteria and secondly, the said exercise was carried out without following the mandate of the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance (Establishment–B) Department, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that this is a fit case for interference with the impugned Cancellation Corrigendum. 29. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned Cancellation Corrigendum dated 19.05.2025 is set aside and quashed. 29. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned Cancellation Corrigendum dated 19.05.2025 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 4 is directed to carry out the evaluation of the bidders, including the petitioner, in terms with the Notification dated 30.07.2024 issued by the Finance (Establishment-B) Department. (iii) Upon such evaluation being carried out, the Respondent Authorities shall take due steps for settlement of the contract in accordance with law. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.