Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010150912025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2200/2025 In WA No.214/2025 BENDANGTOSHI MINING PVT LTD A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT FLAT NO. A3, HOUSE NO. 74, ELIM APARTMENT, BANK COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND 797113 REPRESENTED BY ITS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS MR. ATIQUR RAHMAN BORBHUIYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O HATIGAON, P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 781028 VERSUS 1.THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COAL, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL GOVT OF INDIA ROOM NO 120 F WING 1ST FLOOR SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001 3:PRA NURAVI COAL MINING PVT LTD HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT P.R.A. HOUSE NEAR UDYOG BHAWAN SHANKAR NAGAR RAIPUR CHATTISGARH 49200 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate. : Mr. D. Rathi, Advocate. : Mr. P. Saraogi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Page No.# 2/4 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 23.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, who seeks a modification of the order dated 02.06.2025 passed in WA No.17(AP)/2025. The records reveal that against Notice Inviting Tender for mining rights, the applicant had applied but was technically non-suited, though without assigning any reason whatsoever. This was challenged by the applicant in a writ petition [WP(C) No.109(AP)/2025] where notices were issued to the parties, except the successful bidder, who was allotted the work. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was passed on 17.03.2025 directing that the process of finalization of tender should continue but the final result would be declared only with the leave of the Court. Sensing that this order would cause delay in finalization of the tender process, the respondent No.3 herein (the successful bidder), challenged the afore-noted interim order before this Court. A Division Bench, vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.90(AP)/2025, found that no reasons had been assigned in the order passed in the writ petition as to why the tender process should not be finalized without the leave of the Court. It was also observed by the Division Bench that the Writ Court had not recorded its prima facie satisfaction with the entitlement of the Page No.# 3/4 applicant for granting interim relief. Thus the Division Bench modified the order to the extent that the authorities would finalize the tender process without the leave of the Court but the finalization of the process would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. There was a further caveat in the order passed by the Division Bench that for such conditional finalization of the tender, the applicant in I.A. (Civil) No.90(AP)/2025 shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.06.2025, the Division Bench was of the view that there was no necessity of continuing with the appeal [WA No.17(AP)/2025] filed by respondent No.3 as in sum and substance, the cause/interest of the appellant herein remains protected. If it were to be ultimately found that the applicant was wrongly non-suited on technical grounds, the hands of the clock could always be turned back and the final process could be questioned. In that view of the matter, it was observed vide order dated 02.06.2025 that the Writ Court would continue to hear the writ petition, meaning thereby, that the authorities would have a free hand in concluding the tender process but the final result would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks further modification of this order with what intent is not understandable to us. If such protection has been given to the applicant by the Division Bench, that the final decision of the authorities shall be subject to the decision of the Writ Court, the applicant has already received the desired protection on the judicial side. The prayer made on behalf of the applicant for modification of the order Page No.# 4/4 dated 02.06.2025 is thus absolutely unmerited and is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant