Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040005062025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/17/2025 PRA Nuravi Coal Mining Pvt Limited having its principal place of business at PRA House Near Udyog Bhawan, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh, India 492004 represented by its authorized signatory Mr Tapan Jyoti Bhuyan, Son of Niresh Ranjan Bhuyan, resident of House No.5, Hari Bhawan, Ambikagiri Nagar, Jyoti Path, Zoo Road, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati 24, Assam. VERSUS The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2:The Nominated Authority Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Coal Govt of India Room No.120 F Wing 1st Floor Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110001 3:Bendangtoshi Mining Pvt Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Flat No.3 House No.170 Elim Apartment Bank Colony Dimapur Nagaland 79711 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : R Taku, Bamang Tatung,Risso Aking,Migo Laye,Gyamar Jeevan,Taying Nega Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 02.06.2025 (Robin Phukan, J.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Nega, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This appeal, under Chapter – V of the Gauhati High Court Rules, is directed against the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 109(AP)/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 17.03.2025, the learned Single Judge had directed that the concerned tender process shall not be finalized without the leave of the court. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has already preferred an interlocutory application, being I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025, wherein this court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 109(AP)/2025. 4.1. Mr. Choudhury further submits that this appeal may be closed and the matter may be relegated to the learned Single Judge to decide the same and till then the interim stay may be continued. Page No.# 3/4 5. On the other hand, Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that he has no objection, but the conditions provided in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025, has to be fulfilled. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and also the grounds mentioned there in and also perused the order dated 17.03.2025, passed in W.P.(C) No. 109(AP)/2025 and also the order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025. 7. It is worthwhile to mention here that paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025, read as under: - “6. Having noticed that no reasons have been assigned in the order dated 17.03.2025, passed in WP(C)109(AP)2025 as to why the tender process should not be finalized without the leave of the Court and that the Court has not recorded its prima facie satisfaction with the entitlement of the petitioner for granting interim relief, this Court is inclined to stay the operation the interim order, dated 17.03.2025, passed in WP(C)109(AP)2025. Accordingly, there shall be no bar for the authorities to finalize the tender process without the leave of the Court. However, the stay is made conditional by providing that the finalization of the tender process shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. The stay is also on the condition that the applicant shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit, within a week from the date of this order, before this Court abide by that whatever direction that Page No.# 4/4 may pass in the connected writ appeal, as the finalization of the tender process is made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.” 8. In view of the above order, dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025, nothing survived in the appeal. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this court is inclined to close this appeal. Now the learned Single Judge may proceed to hear the W.P.(C) No. 109(AP)/2025. 9. However, till disposal of the writ petition, the interim stay granted vide order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025 and the condition therein that finalization of tender process shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition, shall continue as provided in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 02.04.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 90(AP)/2025, arising out of the present writ appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant