Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Vindhya Industries Private Limited & Anr.; Respondents – Union of India & others (including Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications).
  • Tender Details: Notice Inviting Tender No. N02HQ-2025-26-RT-1 for provision of 4 × 48 fibre OFC for the communication backbone in the Kamakhya (KYQ) – Guwahati (GHY) – Lumding (LMG) section (191 RKM) of Lumding Division, under HUN6 sections within the sanctioned KAVACH territory.
  • Bid Submission: Petitioners submitted a techno‑commercial bid on 20 May 2026. The bid was rejected because the petitioners did not submit the required local‑content declaration on a non‑judicial stamp paper of Rs 100; they had submitted the declaration on plain white paper.
  • Tender Requirements: Clause 5(3) allowed optional uploading of the local‑content percentage; mandatory documents listed under General Instructions included Technical Credential, Financial Credential, Certificate of Annexure‑V, Bid Security, Bid Capacity, Technical Specification compliance, and Certificate of Local Content as per Form‑1 under Clause 51 of Chapter‑III.
  • Petitioners' Argument (Advocate Pranit Bag): The tender’s Clause 5(3) and General Instructions made uploading optional; the petitioners were ready to submit the Rs 100 stamp‑paper declaration subsequently. Cited ABC Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. IRCTC (2017 SCC OnLine Del 9426) that curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights.
  • Respondents' Argument (Advocate Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborti): The tender categorically required the local‑content certificate on Rs 100 stamp paper; failure to do so justified rejection. Cited Ministry of Communications notification dated 21 Oct 2024, which incorporated Clause 9(a) of the DPIIT PPP‑MII order (19 July 2024) mandating submission on a Rs 100 stamp paper.
  • Court’s Analysis: Recognised contradictory language – Clause 5(3) allowed optional uploading, while General Instructions listed the certificate as mandatory and prohibited uploading. Noted that the IREPS portal also marked Form‑1 as optional, and the respondents later issued a tender making the document mandatory. Determined that the omission of the stamp‑paper format was a curable defect.
  • Precedent: Referred to ABC Beverages case, emphasizing that minor procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned communication dated 20 May 2026 rejecting the techno‑commercial bid is set aside and quashed.
  • Respondent authorities are directed to accept the local‑content declaration submitted on plain white paper and to allow the petitioners to participate in the tender process, provided they meet all other eligibility criteria.
  • WPA No. 12223 of 2026 is allowed.

Topics: Local Content Requirement, Telecom Procurement