Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6362/2025 of MS TANOR ENGINEERING AND ANR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS on 10 June 2026
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
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
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 11.06.2026
Heard Mr. K.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on 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
“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