Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010082292026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2414/2026 PURBANCHAL BUILDTECH PVT LTD AND ANR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 2, SEWALI PATH, F.A. AHMED NAGAR, SIXMILE, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. BHASKAR GOSWAMI 2: BHASKAR GOSWAMI S/O MR. AMBIKA PAD GOSWAMI R/O BARGAON DIV- RANGIA P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST- KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781026, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 ASSAM 3:THE CHAIRMAN BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CHANDMARI Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI-781003 ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT BONGAIGAON DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVN. BONGAIGAON 5:M/S MACROCOSM BUILDERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.B. ROAD BARPETA DIST- BARPETA PIN-781301 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI DEBADIB DAS 6:SRIMANTA SANKARDEV INFRACON PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT S.S. ROAD WARD NO. 3 ABHAYAPURI P.O. AND P.S.- ABHAYAPURI DIST- BONGAIGAON PIN-783384 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI RUDRA KUMAR PATHA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. TJ Mahanta, Senior Advocate Ms. P Sarma Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam & Standing Counsel, PWD B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 11.05.2026 Page No.# 3/4 The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner’s bid to be technically non-responsive vide the communication dated 16.02.2026 and that too without assigning any reason. 2. This Court had enquired with Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam as well as the learned Standing Counsel, PWD as to why the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be technically non-responsive. The learned Standing Counsel, PWD submitted that the petitioner’s technical bid has been held to be non-responsive in view of the bid having not been submitted in terms with Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders of the tender document. 3. A perusal of the Clause 26.1(b) of the Instruction to Bidders shows that a detailed evaluation of the technical bids would be carried out on various aspects which included as to whether the technical bid had been properly signed. A copy of the technical evaluation sheet has been provided before this Court which is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 4. A copy of the said technical evaluation sheet had also been provided to Mr. TJ Mahanta the learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner. 5. Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner would be well advised to withdraw the instant writ petition and again re-file by challenging the said technical bid evaluation carried out, if so advised. 6. He, however, submits that the withdrawal of the writ petition should not affect the cause of action for which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands closed on withdrawal. Page No.# 4/4 8. Withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude and/or prejudice the petitioner to again approach this Court, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant