M/S WIN POWER INFRACON LLP AND ORS vs ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS Advocate - SC, APDCL, ,FOR CAVEATOR,MR. K P PATHAK,MR BHARGAV DAS — WP(C)/1632/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010056982026

e-Filing Number

16-03-2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/3196/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/1632/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10180 - Award of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities ( 172 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S WIN POWER INFRACON LLP AND ORS

    Adv. MR D NANDI,M. KUMARI,M. KUMARI, ,MS P MAZUMDAR,MS. M KUMARI,MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate),MS P MAZUMDAR,M. KUMARI

  2. 2.SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR TIWARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS Advocate - SC, APDCL, ,FOR CAVEATOR,MR. K P PATHAK,MR BHARGAV DAS

  2. 2.CHAIRMAN APDCL

  3. 3.MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL

  4. 4.CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (DISTRIBUTION AND SAFETY)

  5. 5.CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (AUDIT)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

  3. 07-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: WP(C)/1632/2026 Court: Gauhati High Court Date: 07.05.2026 Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the Letter of Intent was not a concluded contract and that rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with bid capacity requirements was justified. Key Findings: - Petitioner Win Power Infracon LLP submitted a construction tender bid of Rs 9,99,31,159 (19.97% below estimate), making it technically lowest bidder. - The letter of intent issued Feb 5, 2026 was merely an "embryonic promise," not a binding contract, pending formal Letter of Acceptance. - Petitioner failed to submit required supporting documents for bid capacity proof (Annexure-1E) at bid submission deadline; these were submitted only later on Feb 10, 2026. - Court found the rejection justified as an essential tender requirement (proving adequate bid capacity per Clause 15(iii)) was violated, protecting competitive fairness among seven bidders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-May-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

  5. 06-May-2026

    Motion

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury

  6. 05-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

  7. 05-May-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

  8. 24-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

  9. 27-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  10. 27-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 18-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  12. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/1632/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP(C)/1632/2026 Court: Gauhati High Court Date: 07.05.2026 Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the Letter of Intent was not a concluded contract and that rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with bid capacity requirements was justified. Key Findings: - Petitioner Win Power Infracon LLP submitted a construction tender bid of Rs 9,99,31,159 (19.97% below estimate), making it technically lowest bidder. - The letter of intent issued Feb 5, 2026 was merely an "embryonic promise," not a binding contract, pending formal Letter of Acceptance. - Petitioner failed to submit required supporting documents for bid capacity proof (Annexure-1E) at bid submission deadline; these were submitted only later on Feb 10, 2026. - Court found the rejection justified as an essential tender requirement (proving adequate bid capacity per Clause 15(iii)) was violated, protecting competitive fairness among seven bidders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case