Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010251682025 2025:GAU-AS:15736 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6450/2025 DIPAK SARMA S/O- JAGDISH CHANDRA SARMA, H. NO. 6, A.K. DEV ROAD, MILAN PATH, FATASIL AMBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781025. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (RODAS) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) CHANDMARI ASSAM-781003 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWRD NALBARI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION NALBARI ASSAM-78133 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Md S Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Page No.# 2/3 Mr B Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Public Works (Roads) Department. 2. The petitioner, herein, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3 in not issuing the site visit certificate to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner submitted the bid on 11.11.2025, without the said site visit certificate and this Court, vide an order dated 13.11.2025, observed that the petitioner’s bid in respect to Package No. 1 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 17.10.2025, should not be rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of the site visit certificate. 3. Mr B Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel of PWRD, has placed instructions before this Court that on 10.11.2025, the site visit certificate was issued to the petitioner, however, the representative of the petitioner took it on 14.11.2025. 4. Be that as it may, the issuance of the site visit certificate being admitted by the respondent authorities, the petitioner shall be deemed to have complied with Clause 7.1 of the Instruction to the Bidders of Part-A to the Instruction to the Bidders, and, therefore, the respondent authorities cannot now reject the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of the site visit certificate. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of, with the following observations:- i) the site visit certificate having been issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner on 10.11.2025, it shall be deemed that the petitioner has satisfied Clause- 7.1 of Part-A of Instruction to the Bidders; ii) the respondent authorities shall not reject the technical bid of the petitioner, on the ground that the site visit certificate was not submitted; Page No.# 3/3 iii) the respondent No. 3 is directed to forward a copy of the said site visit certificate to the tender evaluation committee, so that the same can be kept on record; iv) if, in the meantime, the technical evaluation period is not over, the respondent authorities shall proceed with the technical evaluation period, taking into account that the petitioner had duly submitted the site visit certificate; and v) this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect to the petitioner being technically eligible in respect to other parameters of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), except the site visit certificate. 5. The instructions so submitted by Mr B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWRD, is kept on record and marked with the letter-‘X’. JUDGE Comparing Assistant