Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010173502025 2025:GAU-AS:14263 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No.: WP(C)/5392/2025 MUNNAF AHMED S/O- LATE MOKIBUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF F.A. AHMED NAGAR H. NO. 84 SIX-MILE GUWAHATI-22 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (HEALTH AND EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS (HEALTH AND EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI -781003 3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT GOVT OF ASSAM BARPETA DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVN BARPETA ASSAM PIN NO. -781301 Page No.# 2/4 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Z. Mahmud, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. P. Nayak, AAG 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. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Advocate General who is also the Standing Counsel of the PWD. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by non-issuance of the Site Visit Certificate as requested by the petitioner vide the communication dated 04.09.2025. 3. This Court had issued notice pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the affidavit had been filed detailing out the reasons why the petitioner has not been issued the Site Visit Certificate. 5. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 7 of the Information and Guidelines for the Bidders. Taking into account Page No.# 3/4 that the Clause 7 of the said Information and Guidelines for the Bidders being relevant, the same is reproduced herein under:- “7.0 The bidder is advised to visit the site of work mandatory, at his own cost, and examine it and its surroundings to collect all information that he consider necessary for proper assessment of the prospective assignment. Site visit by the bidder is mandatory as the site is full of number of existing structures. The site visit certificate be furnished after certified from the concerned Divisional Executive Engineer is compulsory.” 6. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner admittedly did not visit the site as would be seen from the very communication dated 04.09.2025, i.e Annexure-5 to the writ petition wherein the petitioner had himself stated that he had authorized one Sri Nayan Jyoti Talukdar to visit the site as his official representative. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no material shown that the said Sri Nayan Jyoti Talukdar is a representative of the petitioner. Additionally, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in fact Sri Nayan Jyoti Talukdar is also a Class-1A Contractor as would be seen in WP(C) No.4455/2025 which is another writ petition tagged along with the instant writ petition by this Court vide an order dated 14.10.2025. Page No.# 4/4 7. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsels and having perused Clause 7 of the Information and Guidelines, finds it pertinent to observe that the said Clause 7 clearly mandates that a site visit by the bidder is mandatory. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner did not visit the site as is apparent from the communication dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant