Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010093402025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./66/2025 NORTH EAST ENVIRO TECH PVT. LTD. A COMANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO A-4, 4TH FLOOR HERASATULLAH ENCLAVE, S.K BHUYAN ROAD, DIGHALIPUKHURI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI ROHITAS BHOMIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, DISPUR GUWAHATI. 2:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI. 3:ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI 4:CHIEF ENGINEER GUWAHATI MINICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI 5:ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI 6:SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER CONSERVANCY BRANCH GMC GUWAHATI 7:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIV-VI GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHATI. Page No.# 2/4 8:JUNIOR TECHNICAL OFFICER DIV-VI GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUWAHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S HAZARIKA, K BHARALI,MR B KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 26.06.2025 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the GMC. The Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP(C)/6246/2023. By the said order, based on the submissions made at the Bar, this Court was given to understand that both the writ petitions—namely, WP(C)/6264/2023 and WP(C)/5961/2023— could be disposed of, as the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) authorities had taken a decision to release the bills. WP(C)/5961/2023 was filed by the petitioner challenging the non-release of bills in respect of a work order issued to the petitioner for the supply of Trommels on a hire basis, with a capacity of 300 MT per day and 75/100 mm of screening. The petitioner was declared the lowest quoted bidder and awarded the contract at the rate offered. The work was duly completed by the petitioner; however, the corresponding bills were not released. Subsequently, a decision was taken by the GMC authorities to release the bills as reflected in the minutes of the Page No.# 3/4 meeting, which were extracted in the order. In those minutes, the GMC authorities agreed to clear the bills in respect of the writ petitioner for one of the work allotted, namely, the supply of Trommels on hire basis with a capacity of 300 MT per day and 75/100 mm of screening. Since WP(C)/6246/2023 was also taken up for hearing along with the connected matter, and it was given to understand during the cause of hearing that in both writ petitions, the GMC authorities had taken a decision to release the bills, both writ petitions were accordingly disposed of. However, in the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP(C)/6246/2023, which is presently under review, the work order number was inadvertently quoted incorrectly. Instead of the correct Work Order No. GGR/139/2020/3495 dated 22.12.2020, which pertains to the work for “Segregation of Legacy Waste using Trommels, other allied infrastructure, and manpower,” an incorrect work order was cited. Furthermore, a completion certificate was issued in respect of the said contract, confirming that the work was duly completed by the writ petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court that the decision for release of the bills pertained only to the Work Order dated 22.12.2020, bearing Work Order No. GGR/139/2020/3495, relating to the supply of Trommels on hire basis with a capacity of 300 MT per day and 75/100 mm of screening. It is further submitted that no such decision was taken by the GMC authorities in respect of the work order concerning “Segregation of Legacy Waste using Trommels, other allied infrastructure, and manpower,” which is the subject matter of WP(C)/6246/2023. Page No.# 4/4 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 09.04.2025 requires correction accordingly. The order dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP(C)/6246/2003 is accordingly reviewed and recalled. The writ petition WP(C)/6246/2023 is therefore restored to the file. The Review Petition is allowed and disposed of. The writ petition shall be listed after four (4) weeks for admission. JUDGE Comparing Assistant