Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010238012025 2025:GAU-AS:15254 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6349/2025 M/S H.A. TRADERS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DIPEN SARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O OF HARI CHANDRA SARMA, RESIDENT OF SILVER SPRING COMPLEX, BETKUCHI, LOKHRA, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781034 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SIKSHA AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 78101 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. H. Baruah, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 12.11.2025 Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. H. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on Page No.# 2/3 behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been settled by this Court vide a judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 in the case of M/s Rahul Enterprise and Another Vs. State of Assam and Another {WP(C) No.5574/2025} wherein this Court observed that the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 shall not act as a bar in the participation of the bidders unless and until there are orders passed for blacklisting by following the procedure mandated under law. 3. Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the facts mentioned in the case of M/s Rahul Enterprise (supra) inasmuch as, the Petitioner herein also could not participate on account of the Petitioner’s name being reflected in the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025. 4. This Court had also perused the material facts of the present writ petition as well as the judgment passed by this Court dated 04.11.2025 and is of the opinion that the directions so passed in the said judgment would apply insofar as the Petitioner in the instant case and more particularly at Paragraph No.30 therein. For the sake of clarity, this Court makes it clear that for the present procurement process of school uniforms, no effective orders can be passed insofar as the Petitioner is concerned. This Court further observes that till orders are not passed for debarment/blacklisting, the Petitioner herein by following the mandate of law, the Respondents herein cannot debar the Petitioner to participate in future procurement process subject to fulfilling the other eligible Page No.# 3/3 conditions. 5. This Court further observes that the findings and observations made herein however shall not preclude the Respondents as well as the Authority concerned to take steps for blacklisting or debarment of the Petitioner, if so advised by following the mandate of law. 6. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant