Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010001742026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/103/2026 SMT HEMADA DAS W/O SHRI DEVAJIT BORAH, R/O SAGALPARA LOKHRA, NEAR LOKHRA STATE DISPENSARY, P.O. SAWKUCHI, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781040. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ASTC) PALTANBAZAR PARIBAHAN BHAWAN GUWAHATI- 781008 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : SC. TRANPORT DEPTT., SC, A S T C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 07.01.2026 Heard Shri P.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam as well as Ms. K. Borpujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A. Chamuah, learned Standing Page No.# 2/3 Counsel, ASTC. 2. Considering the subject matter involved, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had participated in an auction process dated 14.11.2025 initiated by the ASTC for allotment of a Toilet Block for running business at the Western side of the ISBT, Betkuchi, Guwahati on licence basis. The said tender process was, however, the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/6901/2025. In the said writ petition, a submission was made on behalf of the ASTC that the tender process was cancelled and accordingly, the writ petition was closed on 05.12.2025. Thereafter, a second tender notice was issued pursuant to which the petitioner had again participated and it was stipulated that the auction timing would be from 29.12.2025 to 30.12.2025. However, it is the case of the petitioner that even the second tender process was cancelled and another tender was floated on 29.12.2025. 4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action has been taken only to suit some favoured person and to minimize the competition. 5. This Court is, however, of the opinion that no enforceable right has accrued upon the petitioner only on the strength of being a prospective bidder. Unless, any enforceable right is vested upon a party approaching this Court, this Court being a court of equity shall not exercise its jurisdiction. Page No.# 3/3 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant