Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3587/2026 M/S LEOTECH PROCESS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BLOCK NO. C4, PLAT NO. 136, NEW AUTO NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA-52000 ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, JAKIR HUSSAIN. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, 256-A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF ROLLING STOCK ENGINEER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY Page No.# 2/3 GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER LUMDING DIVISION NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY DRM OFFICE COMPLEX LUMDING 782447 6:ROSE VENTURES AND M/S THARU AND SONS JOINT VENTURE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PARAC BUILDING C/O THARU SONS KATIPAYIROAD RAJAGIRI P.O. SOUTH KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- ERNAKULAM KERALA-68310 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. R. Devi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. I have also heard Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. 2. This Court has also taken note of the urgency shown by the Page No.# 3/3 learned counsel for the Respondents stating inter alia that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the Railway Authorities are in difficulties in distribution of linen, blankets to the passengers etc. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with the decision of the Respondent Authorities in rejecting the Petitioner’s technical bid. 4. Accordingly, the interim order passed on 15.07.2026 stands vacated. 5. The writ petition also stands dismissed. 6. Detailed order is passed in separate sheet. JUDGE Comparing Assistant