Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The National Hydro Electric Power ... on 7 January, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010259762024
2025:GAU-AS:179
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1172/2023
SIPL INFRACON
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SRI KRISHNA NAGAR
BELA ROAD
P.O.- RAMNA
DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR
BIHAR- 842002 AND REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS
SHRI PRASHANT SAURABH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
SON OF LATE CHANDRESWAR PRASAD SHARMA
A RESIDENT OF SHRI KRISHNA NAGAR
P.O.
P.S.- BELA
DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR
BIHAR.
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION PVT LTD (NHPC)
AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
FARIDABAD
HARYANA
PIN- 121003.
2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT
GERUKAMUKH
DISTRICT- DHEMAJI
ASSAM. PIN- 787035.
3:GENERAL MANAGER ( CONTRACT)
Page No.# 2/4
SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT
GERUKAMUKH
DIST.- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN -787035.
4:THE GROUP SENIOR MANAGER ( P AND C)
SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT
GERUKAMUKH
DIST.- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787035.
5:THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY GROUP SENIOR MANAGER
I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 4
SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT
GERUKAMUKH
DIST.- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787035.
6:M/S. STARCON INFRA PROJECTS (I) PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT C-101-102
2ND FLOOR
LAJPAT NAGAR-1
NEW DELHI- 110024.
7:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF POWER
NEW DELHI.
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K GHOSH
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC
POWER CORPORATION PVT LTD (NHPC) AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 07-01-2025
Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PK
Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AR Gogoi, learned counsel for
Page No.# 3/4
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the
private respondent No. 6.
2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Tender Committee in
declaring its bid to be non-responsive, pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender
(NIT) dated 25.10.2022, for erosion control measures on the right bank of river
Subansiri by provision of RCC Jack Jetty adjacent of river Kawamari (RD 27 KM.-
30 KM.) It is the specific case of the petitioner that it is a start-up and had
participated in the tender process along with five other bidders. However, the
technical bid of the petitioner had been rejected, by wholly overlooking the
benefits given to a start-up as per Clause 3.2 E of the tender document.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that a similar matter has been dismissed of
by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2024
passed in WP(C) 132/2023 (SIPL Infracon vs. The Union of India & 6 Ors.). He
submits that vide the said judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in
WP(C) 132/2023, the case of the petitioner therein which is similar to the case
of the petitioner in this writ petition, has been dismissed.
4. The petitioner's counsel further submits that a writ appeal filed against the
judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 132/2023 vide WA
426/2024 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and
order dated 19.12.2024.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that though the present case is a covered
case, in terms of the judgments of the Single Bench in WP(C) 132/2023 and the
Division Bench of this Court in WA 426/2024, the petitioner has approached the
Supreme Court by way of an SLP challenging the above said judgments. He
prays that the matter may be adjourned awaiting the decision of the Supreme
Page No.# 4/4
Court.
6. Mr. PK Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr.
M Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submit that when the
present case is a covered case and there is no stay of the judgments by the
Supreme Court, the present writ petition should also be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. As it is an admitted fact that the present case is a covered case on the
basis of the judgments passed in WP(C) 132/2023 and WA 426/2024, this Court
does not find any ground to keep the writ petition pending any longer before
this Court. Judicial propriety requires this Court to dispose of the present writ
petition in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which has
attained finality, as on date. As such, in view of the reasons stated above, this
Court does not find any ground to keep this case pending any longer before this
Court.
9. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
