Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010259762024 2025:GAU-AS:179 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1172/2023 SIPL INFRACON HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SRI KRISHNA NAGAR BELA ROAD P.O.- RAMNA DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR- 842002 AND REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SHRI PRASHANT SAURABH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF LATE CHANDRESWAR PRASAD SHARMA A RESIDENT OF SHRI KRISHNA NAGAR P.O. P.S.- BELA DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR. VERSUS THE NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION PVT LTD (NHPC) AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR FARIDABAD HARYANA PIN- 121003. 2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT GERUKAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM. PIN- 787035. 3:GENERAL MANAGER ( CONTRACT) Page No.# 2/4 SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT GERUKAMUKH DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN -787035. 4:THE GROUP SENIOR MANAGER ( P AND C) SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT GERUKAMUKH DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787035. 5:THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY GROUP SENIOR MANAGER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 4 SUBANSIRI LOWER H.E. PROJECT GERUKAMUKH DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787035. 6:M/S. STARCON INFRA PROJECTS (I) PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT C-101-102 2ND FLOOR LAJPAT NAGAR-1 NEW DELHI- 110024. 7:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF POWER NEW DELHI. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S K GHOSH Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION PVT LTD (NHPC) AND 6 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 07-01-2025 Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PK Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AR Gogoi, learned counsel for Page No.# 3/4 the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Tender Committee in declaring its bid to be non-responsive, pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 25.10.2022, for erosion control measures on the right bank of river Subansiri by provision of RCC Jack Jetty adjacent of river Kawamari (RD 27 KM.- 30 KM.) It is the specific case of the petitioner that it is a start-up and had participated in the tender process along with five other bidders. However, the technical bid of the petitioner had been rejected, by wholly overlooking the benefits given to a start-up as per Clause 3.2 E of the tender document. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that a similar matter has been dismissed of by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 132/2023 (SIPL Infracon vs. The Union of India & 6 Ors.). He submits that vide the said judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 132/2023, the case of the petitioner therein which is similar to the case of the petitioner in this writ petition, has been dismissed. 4. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that a writ appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 132/2023 vide WA 426/2024 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2024. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the present case is a covered case, in terms of the judgments of the Single Bench in WP(C) 132/2023 and the Division Bench of this Court in WA 426/2024, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court by way of an SLP challenging the above said judgments. He prays that the matter may be adjourned awaiting the decision of the Supreme Page No.# 4/4 Court. 6. Mr. PK Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submit that when the present case is a covered case and there is no stay of the judgments by the Supreme Court, the present writ petition should also be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. As it is an admitted fact that the present case is a covered case on the basis of the judgments passed in WP(C) 132/2023 and WA 426/2024, this Court does not find any ground to keep the writ petition pending any longer before this Court. Judicial propriety requires this Court to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which has attained finality, as on date. As such, in view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to keep this case pending any longer before this Court. 9. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant