Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010240202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6159/2025 MS THARU AND SONS REP BY BINEESH BABY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,KALAMASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, NORTH KALAMASSERY,NEAR METRO PILLAR NO. 250, .O.-KALAMASSERY, DISTRICT- ERNAKULAM,KERALA-683104, DULY REPRESENTED BYITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, NAMELY MR.BINEESH BABY, AGE 34, S/O- BABY, VETTIYATTI HOUSE, VASUPURAM, MATTATHUR, MATTATHURKKUNNU, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680684 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SECY. TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, 256-,RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER (SR. DME) TINSUKIA NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY 4:M/S LEOTECH PROCESS 10-26 RAMALAYAM STREET ENIKEPADU VIJAYWADA-521108 Page No.# 2/3 ANDHRA PRADES Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G G GOGOI, A TALUKDAR,MR. P BOIRAGI,MR. J I BORBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN(C.G.C),N R SURANA (OP4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. N.R. Surana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The present writ petition has been instituted assailing the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 4 for allotment of the work in question which was tendered vide e-tender No. M-TSK-2025-34. The petitioner has questioned the eligibility of the respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition for being allotted the work in question. Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the railway authorities, on instruction, submits that the respondents have in the meanwhile discharged the said tender being tender No. M-TSK-2025-34. The said position is also affirmed by Mr. N.R. Surana, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4. In view of the fact that the very tender has now been discharged, the allotment of the work in question cannot be made with the respondent No. 4 and a fresh tender process would be mandated in this connection. Page No.# 3/3 In view of the above, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 are at liberty to assail the discharge of the tender in question by the railway respondents. A copy of the instruction furnished by Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC is kept on record marked as ‘X’. Writ petition stands closed as having been rendered infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant