Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010204492024 2025:GAU-AS:1612-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/349/2024 M/S NOVO COMPUTING A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, BORAH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BELTOLA ROAD, SURVEY, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781028 AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 202, 2ND FLOOR, GOLDEN WOODS CONVENIENT, OPPOSITE JANAMBHUMI PRESS, MANIK NAGAR, RGB ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005 THROUGH ITS PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. JAYANTA KALITA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O- ASWINI KUMAR KALITA, R/O- MIRZAPUR, NEAR MIRZAPUR SABHAGHAR, P.O.- AZARA, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SKILL, EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEPARTMENT, BLOCK- D, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:ASSAM SKILL DEVELOPMENT MISSION THROUGH ITS MISSION DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR KATABARI DPS ROAD NH-37 GARCHUK GUWAHATI- 781035 ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Khanna, Advocate. Ms. M. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 17.02.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment & order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Page No.# 2/3 WP(C) No.2055 of 2024. The appellant/writ petitioner approached the Writ Court with a grievance that the respondents had deprived them from the benefits under the preferential policy and the orders, though the appellant/writ petitioner was entitled for the same. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner while observing that since the appellant/writ petitioner was not meeting the requirement of existence of 10(ten) years, as provided in the relevant clause of the tender conditions, non-consideration of the technical bid of the appellant/writ petitioner by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner has frankly submitted that after dismissal of the writ petition, the tender process, wherein the appellant/writ petitioner had submitted its bid, is already over and the tender has been awarded to the successful bidder and the work is in progress. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case that the tender process in question has already been over and the work has been awarded to the successful bidder, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, we make it clear that the appellant/writ petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the action of the State Government in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for not implementing the preferential policy for MSMEs and Start-ups in its letter and spirit. Page No.# 3/3 With these observations, this writ appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant