Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010220142025 2025:GAU-AS:13520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5811/2025 RANJIT KUMAR DAS S/O KHAGENDRA NAYAN DAS, R/O BAPUJI NAGAR, P.O.- BALADHMARI, P.S. AND DIST- GOALPARA-783101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037 3:THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T) LOWER ASSAM ZONE BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781029 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER GOALPARA DIVISION GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA 5:DHANESWAR RABHA NAYANPUR P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 DIST- KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/4 6:BISHNU KUMAR CHETRY S/O LATE KHARGA BAHADUR CHETRY VILL- SANTINAGAR P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA PIN-783121 7:SUSHANTA RABHA S/O BIPIN RABHA VILL- MANDALGRAM P.O. AND P.S.- DUDHNOI DIST- GOALPARA PIN-78312 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. D. Goswami, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. D. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the communication dated 10.09.2025 whereby the private Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been held to be technically responsive. 3. The ground on which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are not technically responsive is on the ground that the said Respondents have not complied with the Clause 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the Bid Document on the basis of which the Petitioner further contends Page No.# 3/4 that the Site Visit Certificate is mandatory while submitting the bid. 4. This Court finds it pertinent to reproduce Clause 6 along with its sub-clauses. “6. Site visit 6.1 The Bidders may undertake the site visit to Concession Area at their cost and risk to ascertain for themselves the site conditions, location, communication, climate, availability of power, and any other matter considered relevant by them. 6.2. This Bidding document does not however give the unconditional or unrestricted right to access the Concession Area or the right to the Bidders to prospect for minerals. The site visit must be in compliance with Applicable Law and rights of person(s) having surface rights over the Concession Area. 6.3 In the event a Bidder undertakes a site visit, then such Bidder shall be liable towards any loss or damage caused to the site and/or the person(s) having surface rights over the Concession Area, on account of any act of omission of such Bidder or its employees, authorized representatives, agents, advisors etc.” 5. From a perusal of the above three Sub-Clauses, it is apparent that there is no mention that the Site Visit Certificate is required to be a part of document to be submitted by the bidder. Under such circumstances, the question of the private Respondents being not eligible for not submitting the Site Visit Certificate is totally misconceived. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 7. However, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant