Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010036272026 2026:GAU-AS:5892 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./29/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT,DISPUR,GUWAHATI-781006 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3: THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPARTMENT CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI -78100 VERSUS MAHALAXMI ENTERPRISES AND 3 ORS H.NO. 2, CHITRABAN PATH,KALYANI NAGAR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI- 781029, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SURYA SAIKIA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O - ANIL SAIKIA, C/O MAHALAXMI ENTERPRISES. 2:MS BIOCARE ASSOCIATES HOUSE NO.12 H.M DAS ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI - 781008 ASSAM 3:MS RAJA ENTERPRISES PANJABARI BOTAHGULI GPS ROAD H/NO. 211 Page No.# 2/7 NEAR GANESH MANDIR GUWAHATI- 781037 ASSAM. 4:MS SUNRISE TRADERS RUKMININAGAR GUWAHATI - 78100 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Biswas, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 29.04.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the review petitioners and Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3832/2024. 2. It is relevant to take note of that though the instant application has been styled as a review petition, but the instant Page No.# 3/7 application appears to have been filed as a matter of abundant caution seeking clarification from this Court as to whether the applicants herein, while carrying out the directions passed by this Court more particularly at paragraph No. 58(D) of the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 3832/2024, can go ahead by carrying out certain technical evaluations which would be necessary for the purpose of procurement of the materials for which the tender was issued. Paragraph No. 58 of the said judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, being relevant, is reproduced herein under: “58. This Court disposes of the Writ Petition with the following observations and directions: (A). There was no modification to the Criteria for certification on the basis of inserting in the remark column on 02.03.2024 that the certification required “product compliance is modified to WHO-PQS prequalified with valid PQS Code standards for ILR.” In other words, the original terms of certification as published in the Original Bid Document i.e. the Product Tested Certificate at ISO-17025 approved laboratories / WHO PQS Code continued to hold the field. (B). The impugned actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities to cancel the Tender process and to go for fresh tender as resolved in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 is on the face of it arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and also suffers from malice in law. (C). The decision of the Respondent Authorities to cancel the Tender process Page No.# 4/7 initiated on the basis of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 and go ahead with a fresh tender process as resolved in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 is interfered with and accordingly the Impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 is set aside and quashed. (D). The Respondent Authorities are directed to bring the Tender Process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 to its logical conclusion as per the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024. (E). There shall be no order for costs.” 3. From a perusal of the above quoted directions passed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, it is seen that this Court held that the actions of the Respondent Authorities in cancelling the tender on the grounds stipulated in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 was arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, and also suffered from malice in law. Under such circumstances, the said Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 was interfered with and set aside and quashed. This Court further observed and directed that the Respondent Authorities should bring the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 to its logical conclusion as per the terms contained therein. There is no mention in the said judgment and order as to how the evaluation is to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities/applicants herein. What is being mentioned Page No.# 5/7 is that the said Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 is required to be brought to a logical conclusion as per the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024. 4. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the submissions of Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who submits that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, the respondents have again carried out another technical evaluation of the bids so submitted and in the meeting held on 20.03.2025, the tender committee sought to insist upon certain documents though the petitioner possessed, but at the time when the tenders were submitted and evaluated as the petitioner was shown to be qualified and there was no representation or objection put to it, the petitioner had no occasion to submit those documents. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the move which is being made by the applicants/the Respondent Authorities is nothing but to circumvent the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 3832/2024. In that regard, the learned counsel has also referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the writ petitioner in the instant proceedings, and more particularly to Annexure-A therein. Page No.# 6/7 5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions as well as to the present application. As already observed hereinabove, while passing the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, and more particularly at paragraph No. 58(D) thereof, this Court did not mention as to how the Respondent Authorities were required to bring the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 to its logical conclusion. The Respondent Authorities being the author of the tender documents would be the best judge to decide how the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024 can be brought to the logical conclusion on the basis of the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender. This Court further clarifies that in the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, this Court set aside the decision to cancel the tender on the ground that the reasons assigned in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024 which were found to be irrational, unreasonable and suffered from malice in law. This Court further clarifies that the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 did not consider any other reason, but the reasons assigned in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2024. 6. Under such circumstances, if the Respondent Authorities take a decision contrary to the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.02.2024, it shall always be open to the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3832/2024 to assail the same, if so Page No.# 7/7 aggrieved in a separate writ proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. 8. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the present order shall not affect the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3832/2024 from urging the contentions and grounds mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition in any future proceedings, if so required. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.05.01 23:47:18 +05'30'