Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108122023 2026:GAU-AS:5817 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/314/2023 M/S ROYAL BNILLP (JV) (A JOINT VENTURE OF ROYAL INFRACONSTRU LIMITED AND BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AMBAGAN ROAD, BYE LANE, NEAR MADHUBAN FACTORY, TEZPUR-784001 IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR, ASSAM, AND REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE- SH. BABUL NATH, AGE-44 YEARS, S.O LATE MANORANJAN NATH, R/O VILL- POLICE LINE, TEZPUR, SONITPUR-784001 VERSUS SUNIL N MASKE CHIEF ENGINEER/CON-5, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781011 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Biswas Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. H Gupta, CGC B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 27.04.2026 Heard Mr. M Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner. Mr. H Gupta, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed in WP(C)No.1010/2023 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that the rejection of the Techno-Commercial bid of the petitioner No.1 in the writ petition vide email dated 07.02.2023 was unsustainable in law and the same was set aside and quashed. 3. Further to that, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court declared and directed the bid of the petitioner No.1 was technically responsive and the bid of the petitioner No.1 be considered for the financial evaluation after which the work should be allotted to the successful bidder in accordance with law. Paragraph 33 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “33. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the rejection of the Techno-Commercial bid of the petitioner no. 1 vide email dated 07.02.2023 is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the bid of the petitioner no. 1 is directed to be held as technically responsive and accordingly, be considered for the financial evaluation after which, the work may be allotted to the successful bidder in accordance with law.” 4. It is further pertinent to take note of that the Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 13.10.2022 and the tender was opened on 15.11.2022 and the bid validity was 90 days. On 07.02.2023, reasons were assigned for rejection of the bids of the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.1010/2023. The writ petition was filed on 20.02.2023 and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court did not grant a stay Page No.# 3/3 while issuing notice. Thereupon, the writ petition was heard and the judgment was reserved on 02.03.2023. 5. The record further reveals that taking into account that the bid validity period was otherwise getting over and it would result in escalation of the costs and there was no stay granted by this Court, the Letter of Acceptance was issued to the lowest bidder on 27.03.2023. Thereupon, the judgment and order was passed on 26.04.2023. 6. It is the opinion of this Court that though there were directions passed by this Court for consideration of the financial evaluation, afresh, but the challenge to the Letter of Acceptance which was issued to the lowest bidder on 27.03.2023 was not challenged or was a part of the judgment. 7. Under such circumstances, the directions so passed in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 in WP(C)No.1010/2023 cannot be complied with. 8. In that view of the matter, the contempt proceedings stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant