Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4826/2021 of AMAN SATYA KACHROO TRUST Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS on 19 May 2026
GAHC010150652021 2026:GAU-AS:7005 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4826/2021 AMAN SATYA KACHROO TRUST A TRUST REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 328, MASJID MOTH, SOUTH
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010150652021
2026:GAU-AS:7005
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4826/2021
AMAN SATYA KACHROO TRUST
A TRUST REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT,
1882. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 328, MASJID MOTH, SOUTH
EXTENSION 2, NEW DELHI 110049, REPRESENTED BY PROFESSOR
RAJENDRA KACHROO @ RAJ KACHROO
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
3:M/S ZAM ENTERPRISE
REPRESENTED BY ZEEDUL MAZUMDAR
FLAT NO. 504
SUBHAM GREENS
PO SOUKUCHI
PS GORCHUK
GUWAHATI
KAMRUPM ASSAM 78103
Page No.# 2/2
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. D Ghosh Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. U Das Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam B E F O R E
HON’BLE 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
20.05.2026
Heard Ms. D Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the rejection of the petitioner’s bid by the respondent No.2 as non-responsive. It is, however, relevant to take note of that the tender in question was only limited for a period of one year i.e. for 2021-22 and this aspect would be apparent from the work order dated 06.09.2021 whereby the period of contract is for the year 2021-22.
3. Under such circumstances, as the contract is no longer with there with the respondent No.3 on the basis of the tender wherein the petitioner was held to be technically non-responsive, no live cause of action remains in the instant proceedings for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, for which, the writ petition stands closed.
4. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant