Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7819 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 15 October, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                   Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010213682025




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:13812

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5731/2025

         MD. JIYAUR PASA
         S/O- LATE SALIM PASA, NALBARI TOWN, WARD NO-8, P.S AND P.O-
         NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM- 781335.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO
         THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

         2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)
          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM- 781003.

         3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PWD (ROADS)
          BAKSA DIVISION
          MUSHALPAUR
          BAKSA
         ASSAM- 781372.

         4:M/S ANUPAM NIRMAN PVT LTD
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
         ANUPAM SARMAH
          R/O- BHASKAR NAGAR
          BYELANE NO. 2
          ZOO-NARENGI ROAD
          BEHIND B.S PUBLICATIONS
          GUWAHATI
                                                                    Page No.# 2/5

            ASSAM-781021

           5:M/S ANIL DAS CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
            REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
           ANIL DAS
            R/O- BARNIL TOWER
            PALASHBARI ROAD
            MIRZA
            KAMRUP
           ASSAM-78112




                                    BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


       Advocates for the petitioner(s)   :Mr. S Hoque


       Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam

       Date of hearing & judgment        :15.10.2025



                            JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. S Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation notice dated 06.08.2025 whereby Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) bearing No.CE/DEV/TB/06/2025-26/03 Page No.# 3/5

dated 15.05.2025 was cancelled due to technical reasons.

3. It is relevant to take note of that the impugned cancellation notice is a result of an earlier litigation instituted by the petitioner registered and numbered as WP(C)No.4563/2025. It is pertinent to observe that the petitioner had participated in pursuance to the NIT dated 15.05.2025 and the petitioner was held to be technically not responsive on the ground that the petitioner did not have experience pertaining to Cement Treated Sub Base (CTSB) work. Being aggrieved, the said writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein.

4. Subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition, this Court had passed an interim order on being prima facie satisfied that the requirement of fulfilling the eligibility criteria of having CTSB work was inserted subsequent to the original NIT, thereby changing the goal post. The respondent authorities subsequent thereto had issued the impugned cancellation notice dated 06.08.2025 on the ground that the eligibility qualification pertaining to CTSB work was necessary for the purpose of carrying out the construction work envisaged in the NIT dated 15.05.2025. Accordingly, in view of the impugned cancellation notice dated 06.08.2025, the writ petition, therefore, was closed vide the order dated 22.08.2025.

Page No.# 4/5

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned cancellation notice on the ground that prior to the cancellation notice being issued, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing.

6. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties at length on this issue.

7. There is nothing brought on record, in spite of opportunity being granted to the petitioner on the earlier occasion as to why the eligibility condition, which the respondents now wants to insert i.e. the experience in CTSB work is not required for the purpose of carrying out the work in question, inasmuch as, in order to insert the said condition, the earlier NIT was withdrawn. This Court also takes note of that the respondent authorities are the author of the document and they are the best person to know what eligibility conditions are required to be incorporated. Nothing has been shown, as already stated, that the proposed eligibility condition has no relation to the construction work.

8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the question of challenging the impugned cancellation notice does not have legs to stand. Accordingly, this Court does not find the instant Page No.# 5/5

case to be a fit case for issuance of notice, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant