Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010071312025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2217/2025 1.BETTER POWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ANR REPRESENTED BY SRI RATUL CH. KAKOTI, PRINCIPAL OFFICER, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A K AZAD ROAD, BESIDES SBI ATM, REHABARI, GHY- 781008. 2: RATUL CH. KAKOTI S/O- LATE MEDINI KAKOTI SR. MANAGER (MARKETING) PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF BETTER POWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. A K AZAD ROAD BESIDES SBI ATM REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008 VERSUS 1.THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, KAMRUP (M) AT GUWAHATI-781001. 2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE KAMRUP(M) AT GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE (GeM) 3RD FLOOR JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Sattar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate for Gauhati High Court. Page No.# 2/3 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned Advocate for the petitioner/Company and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the Gauhati High Court. The petitioner/Company is aggrieved by it being non-suited in the tender floated by the High Court for supply of Generator Sets. Mr. Das, learned Advocate has informed this Court that the tender notice, pursuant to which the petitioner/Company had applied, was withdrawn; whereafter a fresh tender was issued in which also the petitioner/Company had participated but the work order was given to somebody else. The supplies have been made. At this stage, Mr. Sattar, learned Advocate has pointed out that he does not want any other relief except the fact that some directions should be issued to take down the name of the petitioner/Company from the GeM Portal, showing it as having been black-listed. In fact, the petitioner/Company did not know that IIT, Guwahati, had ever black-listed it. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the Gauhati High Court, however, showed to us from his set of instructions, the letter of IIT, Guwahati, addressed to the petitioner/Company about of it being put on the Holiday List for 2(two) years. Page No.# 3/3 This stricto sensu would not be black-listing but, even otherwise, the effective period passed off long time ago. This could not act as an impediment in the petitioner/Company participating in any tender where the stipulation is that no bid would be accepted from a party which is black-listed. The petitioner does not remain black-listed, if what has been informed to us is correct. In any view of the matter, nothing is left in this writ petition to be decided. Should the petitioner/Company find that its name has yet not been brought down from the list of debarred/blacklisted parties from the GeM Portal, it can avail of the remedies available to it under the law. With the afore-noted observation, the writ petition stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant