Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010248682025 2026:GAU-AS:8354 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6362/2025 MS TANOR ENGINEERING AND ANR A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETORSRI DILINGTATAK- THE PETITIONER NO.2, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT P-SECTOR, ITANAGAR, P.O. P.S. ITANAGAR, DISTRICT - PAPUMPARE 791111, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 2: MR DILING TATAK SON OF SRI TAGOM TATAK RESIDENT OF P-SECTOR P.O. P.S. ITANAGAR DISTRICT -PAPUMPARE-791111 ARUNACHAL PRADES VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2:THE BORDER ROAD ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL DG MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD NARAINA DELHI CANT NEW DELHI-110010. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS HQ DGBR/E CELL SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD DELHI CANT NEW DELHI Page No.# 2/4 PIN 110010. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER BRO PROJECT ARUNANK HQ CE P ARUNANK C/O 99 APO 5:THE SE (QS AND C) DIRECTOR CONTRACT FOR DGBR SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD DELHI CANT NEW DELHI PIN-110010. 6:THE SE (CIVIL) DIRECTOR CONTRACTS HEAD QUARTER CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT ARUNANK C/O 99 APO PIN 931719 7:THE AUTHORITYS ENGINEER HQ 23 BRTF C/O 99 APO PIN 930023 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.J. Saikia, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Gupta, CGC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. K.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on Page No.# 3/4 behalf of the petitioners. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 31.07.2025 as well as the order dated 15.10.2025 whereby the petitioner No. 1 was placed in the negative list, that too, without following the mandate of the principles of natural justice and, more particularly, the proviso to Clause 23.1(vi) of the Bid Document which categorically stipulates that not only there should be a notice giving 15 days to the person against whom action are contemplated to put in the negative list, but also there is a requirement of passing an order. 3. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC submitted that the instant writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the impugned orders were passed on the basis of quarterly reviews. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2025 and the subsequent quarterly review, the petitioner No. 1 is no longer in the negative list. In that regard, the learned CGC referred to the communication dated 15.04.2026 and the enclosure thereto relating to the enlisted and un-enlisted contractors. In the said enclosure, the petitioner No. 1’s name appears at Serial No. 15 and in the column “Whether Considered Capable of Handling More Load”, it is mentioned as “Yes”. In addition to that, in the Page No.# 4/4 “Remarks/Reasons” column, it is mentioned as “Work under progress”. 5. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC further referred to another communication dated 11.05.2026 wherein in the Work Load Return for quarter ending March, 2026, the petitioner No. 1 has been shown at Serial No. 156. In the column indicating “Whether considered capable of handling more load as approved by DGBR”, it is mentioned as “Yes”. In addition to that, there is no remark put against the petitioner No. 1. The communications placed before this Court are kept on record and marked with the letter “X” and “Y”. 6. In view of the above, as the petitioner No. 1 is no longer in the negative list, nothing further remains for adjudication in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant