Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010267012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6875/2025 PREMIER CRYOGENICS LIMITED AND ANR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANIRAM DEWAN ROAD, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, PIN-781003, ASSAM, AND REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ABHIJIT BAROOAH. 2: SRI ABHIJIT BAROOAH SON OF LATE BIPUL CHANDRA BAROOAH RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.4 KUSHAL KONWAR ROAD P.O.- LATASIL PIN-781004 DISTRICT-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KHANAPARA SIX MILE GUWAHATI-781022 ASSAM. 3:THE PRINCIPAL CUM CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT NALBARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL DAKHINGAON NALBARI NONOI PIN-781350 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 4:M/S MEGHALAYA OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED ATHGAON GUWAHATI - 781001 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5:THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) PIN-781032 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P PATHAK, MR. C PAUL,MR BHARGAV DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, MR J. B. CHOUDHURY(R-4),MR. ARIF AHMED(R- 4),MR P J DUTTA(R-4),MISS. J GOGOI (R-4),MR B P BORAH(R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 22.06.2026 Heard Shri B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Addl. A.G., Assam as well as Shri B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. The writ petition was instituted challenging the action of the respondent authorities to hold the bid of the respondent no. 4 to be responsive. It was also contended that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 on 13.06.2025 which was not considered. Page No.# 3/3 Shri Gogoi, learned Addl. A.G. has, however, submitted that instructions have been received as per which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been disposed of on 12.06.2026. In fact, the appeal has been allowed by holding the bid of the respondent no. 4 as not responsive. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that by the aforesaid developments, the grievance of the petitioner stands substantially redressed. The writ petition is accordingly closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant