Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010047132022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1740/2022 M/S B R STEEL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS BOTH THE PARTNERS NAMELY- 1. OM PRAKASH JAISWAL, S/O. LT. NAVRANG PRASAD JAISWAL AND BIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, S/O. OM PRAKASH JAISWAL, OFFICE ADDRESS- 98, MANICKTALA AIN ROAD, SATINSEN SARANI LANE-A, PLOT NO.18, NEAR ELECTRIC METER ROOM, KOLKATA- 700054 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) TO BE REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL (PROJECT) GUWAHATI CN(TX)NE REGION BSNL GUWAHATI-01. 3:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TP) CN(TX)NE REGION BSNL GUWAHATI-01. 4:MSTC LTD. TO BE REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED PEERSON GUWAHATI BRANCH MSTC BSNL EXCHANGE BUILDING BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD WIRELESS GUWAHATI- 5:SHREE BASUKI TRADING REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI BIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL. Page No.# 2/4 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 98 MANICKTALA AIN ROAD SATINSEN SARANI LANE- A PLOT NO. 18 NEAR ELECTRIC METER ROOM KOLKATA- 70005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR. S ROY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BSNL, M. HOSSAIN(R5),MR G GOSWAMI,MR H GUPTA,ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.07.2026 Considering the subject matter involved in this writ petition instituted in the year 2022 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. It may be mentioned that the contesting respondent no. 3 has filed affidavit-in-opposition on 15.06.2022. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner which is a partnership firm had participated in an E-auction which was initiated vide notice dated 20.10.2021 for sale of Fibre Distribution Frame and STM16 MADM located at Satgaon Telephone Exchange, Satgaon, Guwahati, Assam. In the said process, the petitioner claims to have been adjudged the highest bidder and he had deposited the amount quoted by him as total cost of the goods and accordingly Delivery Order was issued on 09.12.2021. It is however the case of the petitioner that when the delivery was sought to be taken, the materials were found to be less than the quantity which was stated in the notice. The petitioner had filed representation which was not taken into consideration. At the same time, the respondent authority had issued a fresh e-auction notice and accordingly the writ petition was instituted. Page No.# 3/4 3. This Court while issuing notice on 10.03.2022 had however made it clear that the decisions taken in the fresh e-auction notice dated 25.02.2022 would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Shri M. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, BSNL. I have also heard Shri M. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 which has been subsequently impleaded vide orders of this Court. 5. During the course of the hearing, this Court vide order dated 10.06.2026 had directed Shri Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions with regard to the difference in the amount offered by respondent no. 5 in the new tender process. According to the same, Shri Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel has placed on record a written communication dated 13.07.2026. A perusal of the said instruction would show that there is a difference of Rs.60,778/- with respect to the offer made by the respondent no. 5. 6. To clarify the aspect, it may be noted that the petitioner had quoted a total amount of Rs.4,17,134/- including GST and TCS against the first auction notice and the respondent no. 5 in the subsequent notice had quoted a total amount of Rs.4,77,912/- including GST and TCS. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Laskar has however submitted that in the subsequent e-auction, though the petitioner, as such did not participate, the respondent no. 5 had participated which however consist of one common member as partner. 8. Both Shri Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 are in agreement that instead of keeping this matter pending, the articles may be allowed to be lifted on the rate Page No.# 4/4 offered by the respondent no. 5 in the new tender process. Such submission has been made inasmuch as the interest of the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 appears to be one and the same as there is one common partner. The aforesaid suggestion is also not objected to by Shri Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel as the materials are lying since the year 2022. 9. In view of the above, the e-auction initiated vide the subsequent notice dated 20.10.2021 is directed to be completed by allowing the respondent no. 5 to lift the articles on the rate offered by the said respondent no. 5. 10. At this stage, Shri Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount which was deposited by the petitioner be adjusted and the additional amount be paid by the respondent no. 5. 11. It is accordingly directed that the additional amount be paid by respondent no. 5 and the amount paid by the petitioner be adjusted towards meeting the final amount as per the subsequent e-auction notice. 12. The entire process be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 45 days from today. 13. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant