Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173502025 2025:GAU-AS:14263 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4455/2025 NAYAN JYOTI TALUKDAR S/O- PRADIP TALUKDAR, VILL.- SORBHOG TOWN, WARD NO. 3, NEAR P.T. COMPLEX BUS STAND, P.O. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM BARPETA MANDIA AND CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION PIN- 781301 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Z. Mahmud, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC, PWD Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PWD. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-issuance of the Site Visit Certificate by the respondent No.3 in respect to the works specifically mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 2 & 3 of the NIT dated 09.07.2025. 3. Pursuant to the writ petition being filed, this Court had issued notice vide an order dated 07.08.2025. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 wherein it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.07.2025 before the respondent No.3 with three numbers of Site Visit Certificates for three numbers of packages. It was further mentioned that upon perusal of the application including the geo-tag photographs, it did not establish that the petitioner's physical presence at the respective site, as required under Clause 7.1 of the Instructions to Bidders. 4. This Court has also perused the photographs enclosed to Page No.# 3/3 the writ petition at pages 27, 28 & 29 and from the said photographs, it is not discernible that the petitioner had visited the site. 5. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant