JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities in rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner vide the intimation given on 22.09.2025. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The Office of the General Manager (Con), N.F. Railway, Maligaon had issued a Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.CON/2025/JUNE/02 dated 12.06.2025 for construction of Cut & Cover tunnel on pile foundation with touch piles on both sides between CH 39457-39492 and Cut & Cover tunnel open foundation between CH 39492-39620 as slop protection measure in connection with Dimapur (Dhansari) - Kohima (Zubza) New BG Railway line Project. 4. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process by submitting its bid. However, on 09.07.2025, the Petitioner’s techno commercial bid was found technically unsuitable and the said aspect was informed to the Petitioner on 22.09.2025 vide an email assigning the following reason: “Altered format of Annexure-V, para 8 submitted by bidder.” 5. The Petitioner upon receiving the said email dated 22.09.2025, submitted a representation on 23.09.2025 for reconsideration on the basis that there was no necessity for submission of the Annexure-V in view of the Railway Board Circular No.2022/CE-I/CT/GCC Correspondence dated 14.05.2024 and further stating that the Petitioner’s bid being lower than the declared L1 bidder, the Respondent Authorities should reconsider their stand. Having not received any favourable response, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide an order dated 26.09.2025 issued notice. However taking into account the instruction so placed by Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC dated 25.09.2025 which was kept on record and marked with the letter “X”, this Court was not inclined to pass any interim directions. 7. The record reveals that in the meantime, the Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein the specific stand so taken is that the uploaded compulsory certificate in Annexure-V was tampered/modified as compared to the standard format of Annexure-V of the tender document in para No.8. 7. The record reveals that in the meantime, the Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein the specific stand so taken is that the uploaded compulsory certificate in Annexure-V was tampered/modified as compared to the standard format of Annexure-V of the tender document in para No.8. It was further mentioned that in Note (ii) of the tender notice dated 12.06.2025, tenderers were compulsorily required to submit a certificate as per Annexure-V of the tender documents and without that, the offer would be summarily rejected. It was further mentioned that the online certificate as mentioned by the Petitioner is not a certificate but the format provided in the tender document for the guidance of the bidder and the bidders were required to submit all certificates at designated places i.e. Point No.1 under technical compliance of the tender document. It was further mentioned that in the copy of the declaration by the Petitioner, the said online certificate does not have signature (physical or digital) of the Petitioner. Hence the said document cannot be treated as a valid document. It was further mentioned that as no valid online certificate was uploaded by the Petitioner and as per Annexure-1 submitted by the Petitioner, if the bidder tampers or modifies the tender forms which are downloaded from the internet site www.IREPS.Gov.in the tender would be summarily rejected. It was therefore mentioned that under such circumstances, the Petitioner’s technical bid was rejected. 8. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondents have enclosed the certificate in Annexure-V uploaded by the designated partners of the Petitioner. In addition to that, the format for the certificate to be submitted/uploaded by the tenderer along with tender document in Annexure-V was also enclosed as Annexure-2. The bid so submitted by the Petitioner was enclosed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition. 9. The record further reveals that the Petitioner thereupon filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating its stand taken in the writ petition to the effect that in view of the Railway Board Circular dated 14.05.2024, the question of uploading the Annexure-V did not arise. To the said affidavit-in-reply, the Petitioner enclosed a tender document in respect to another tender wherein the Petitioner participated which is as per the GEM/IREPS portal wherein as per the Petitioner, the certificate in terms with Annexure-V is not required and what is required from the bidder is only to fill up the boxes and upload the respective forms. To the said affidavit-in-reply, the Petitioner enclosed a tender document in respect to another tender wherein the Petitioner participated which is as per the GEM/IREPS portal wherein as per the Petitioner, the certificate in terms with Annexure-V is not required and what is required from the bidder is only to fill up the boxes and upload the respective forms. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 10. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid on the ground that the Annexure-V so uploaded was not as per the format is unfair and arbitrary taking into account that the said Annexure-V was not at all required to be submitted in view of the Railway Board Circular dated 14.05.2024. The learned Senior counsel submitted that pursuant to the Circular issued by the Railway Board dated 14.05.2024, when a bid is called in the IREPS module, as the facility has already been created for online submission of the Annexure-V, therefore, the provision of downloading of Annexure-V of the GCC and uploading of the physical signed copy by the tenderer had been discontinued. The learned Senior counsel therefore submitted that taking into account the Circular of the Railway Board dated 14.05.2024, the Respondent Authorities are bound to adhere to the same. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that this aspect was brought to the notice of the Respondent Authorities vide the representation dated 23.09.2025 however, the same was not considered. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that non-consideration of the Petitioner’s representation and the insistence on the disqualification of the Petitioner on the ground that physically signed Annexure-V document was not uploaded as per format is contrary to law and renders the action on the part of the authorities unfair, unreasonable and liable for interference. 11. On the other hand, Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner knew that there was a requirement of submission of Annexure-V as it is the mandate of Note-(ii) for submission of the Annexure-V wherein it is mentioned that failure to submit the Annexure-V in the proper format would lead to summarily rejection of the tender. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner knew that there was a requirement of submission of Annexure-V as it is the mandate of Note-(ii) for submission of the Annexure-V wherein it is mentioned that failure to submit the Annexure-V in the proper format would lead to summarily rejection of the tender. The learned CGC for the Respondents further submitted that taking into account that this Court is exercising powers of judicial review and as per the settled principles of law, this Court may only test the decision making process and if it is found that the decision making process do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness, unfairness or unreasonableness, this Court may not like to interfere with the impugned decision taken by the Railway Authorities to disqualify the Petitioner’s technical bid. The learned CGC further submitted that by tampering/modifying Annexure-V, a vital aspect have been sought to be tampered/modified which would affect the Respondent Authorities to take steps against the Petitioner if there is non-compliance or breach to the terms of the contract. The learned CGC therefore submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned decision. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 12. Upon perusal of the materials on record and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the following point for consideration arises: Whether the Respondent Authorities were justified in rejecting the techno commercial bid of the Petitioner on the ground stated in the email dated 22.09.2025? 13. In the Tender Notice dated 12.06.2025, the note appended thereto is reads as under: “Note (i) The Bid Security shall be deposited either in cash through e-payment gateway or submitted as Bank Guarantee bond from a scheduled commercial bank of India or as mentioned in tender documents. The Bank Guarantee bond shall be as per Annexure-VIA and shall be valid for a period of 90 days beyond the bid validity period. (ii) Tenderers are compulsorily required to submit a certificate as per Annexure-V of Tender document without that the offer will be considered incomplete and will be summarily rejected. (iii) In case of other than company/Propriety firm, Annexure-V(A) should also be submitted by each member of Partnership firm/Joint Venture (JV)/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)/Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) etc, signed by themselves or through their attorney/authorized signatory of the individual firm.” 14. (iii) In case of other than company/Propriety firm, Annexure-V(A) should also be submitted by each member of Partnership firm/Joint Venture (JV)/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)/Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) etc, signed by themselves or through their attorney/authorized signatory of the individual firm.” 14. From the above Note more particularly at Serial No.(ii), it is stipulated that tenderers are compulsorily required to submit a certificate as per Annexure-V of tender document and without that, the offer would be considered incomplete and would be summarily rejected. Note (iii) further stipulates that in case the tenderer is a Partnership Firm/Joint Venture/Hindu Undivided Family/Limited Liability Partnership etc., they are required to submit a further enclosure i.e. Annexure-V(A) which has to be signed by themselves or through their attorney/authorized signatory of the individual firm. 15. From the materials on record more particularly Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondents, it would be seen that both the partners of the Petitioner firm i.e. Shri Babul Nath and Smti Sharmistha Nath had submitted the certificate in Annexure-V along with the bid. It is further pertinent to mention that Annexure-2 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondents is the format for certificate to be submitted/uploaded by the tenderer along with the tender document. Taking into account that the issue involved is alteration of Paragraph No.8 of the certificate in Annexure-V, this Court finds it relevant to set out the difference between the paragraph submitted by the partners of the Petitioner with what is actually required as per Annexure-V. The same is provided in the following chart: 16. From the above chart, it would be seen that the partners of the Petitioner firm in their certificate submitted as per Annexure-V inserted an additional word “incorrect” and omitted the words “and may also lead to any other action provided in the contract”. For convenience, the additional word in the certificate submitted by the Petitioner and the words omitted are in bold. 17. Under such circumstances, the certificate so submitted by the partners of the Petitioner firm in Annexure-V is a modified certificate to that what the Respondent Authorities had sought for or in other words, it amounts to non-submission of the certificate as required under Annexure-V as the certificate in question so submitted is not in accordance with the format so provided. 18. 18. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of the submissions so made by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner that there is no requirement of submission of the physical copy of Annexure-V in view of the Circular of the Railway Board dated 14.05.2024. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner herein cannot be allowed to raise the said issue for two reasons. First, Note (ii) of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 12.06.2025 is not a subject matter of challenge. Secondly, the Petitioner having already submitted the certificate as per Annexure-V cannot now contend that the certificate was not at all required to be submitted. 19. Accordingly, this Court does not find that the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities to reject the techno commercial bid of the Petitioner to be unfair or unreasonable or violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. CONCLUSION: 20. The writ petition lacks merit. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.