Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20622 (GAU)

M/S. INDOMECH INDUSTRIES v. ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL

WP(C)/7420/2018 · 2025-03-06

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010237132018 2025:GAU-AS:2441 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7420/2018 M/S. INDOMECH INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF D.G.SETS ETC. AS AN SSI UNIT HAVING ITS FACTORY AT THEM MARWET, P.O. KHANAPARA- 781022, DIST- RI-BHOI, NMEGHALAYA AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, G.S.TOWER, A.T.ROAD, P.O. GHY-1, ASSAM VERSUS ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.O. GHY- 21 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C GAUR, MS. M GAUR,MR R GAUR Advocate for the Respondent : SC. A.H.S.E.C., MR. T C CHUTIA, SC, AHSEC,MR. U J SAIKIA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE O R D E R Date : 07.03.2025 . Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.K. Roy, learned standing counsel for the respondent Assam Higher Secondary Education Council. Page No.# 2/2 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the offer for Greaves Power Diesel Generator Set 250 KVA, pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFA) dated 16.07.2018, by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati. 3. The rejection of the petitioner appears to be on the ground of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the subsequent approval by the purchase Tender Committee of the respondent Council, suggesting to purchase the KIRLOSKAR GREEN 250 KVA, whereas the offer of the petitioner was for Greaves Power Diesel Generator Set 250 KVA. 4. Although the present writ petition was filed before the offer was finalized, by efflux of time, the writ petition has become infructuous, as the petitioner has withdrawn his earnest money during the pendency of the writ petition and the offer has already been executed. 5. Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although this Court has passed an interim order, staying the finalization of the offer, by efflux of time, the matter has virtually become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed as infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant