M/S H.A. Traders Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S H.A. Traders Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions that the Respondents cannot debar the Petitioner from participating in future procurement processes, subject to fulfilment of other eligible conditions, until debarment/blacklisting orders are passed in accordance with law; no effective orders were made in relation to the present school-uniform procurement process, and liberty is preserved to the Respondents to initiate lawful blacklisting/debarment steps.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in the absence of any order of blacklisting/debarment passed in accordance with law, the Respondents can debar the Petitioner — whose name is reflected in the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 — from participating in procurement processes.

Court's answer

The directions passed in the judgment dated 04.11.2025 in M/s Rahul Enterprise (supra), particularly at Paragraph 30 thereof, apply to the Petitioner in the instant case; however, for the present procurement process of school uniforms, no effective orders can be passed insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.

Ratio / Principle

Till orders for debarment/blacklisting are passed in accordance with the mandate of law, the Respondents cannot debar the Petitioner from participating in future procurement processes, subject to the Petitioner fulfilling the other eligible conditions.

Key takeaways

The findings and observations in this order shall not preclude the Respondents or the authority concerned from taking steps for blacklisting or debarment of the Petitioner, if so advised, by following the mandate of law.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), WP(C)/6349/2025, order dated 12.11.2025 — Writ petition by M/s H.A. Traders, whose name appeared in the enclosure to a communication dated 20.03.2025, disposed of by applying the directions in the judgment dated 04.11.2025 in M/s Rahul Enterprise v. State of Assam (WP(C) No.5574/2025), particularly Paragraph 30. Held: (i) for the present school-uniform procurement process no effective orders could be passed for the Petitioner; (ii) till orders for debarment/blacklisting are passed following the mandate of law, the Respondents cannot debar the Petitioner from participating in future procurement processes, subject to other eligible conditions; (iii) the observations do not preclude the Respondents/authority from taking lawful steps for blacklisting or debarment if so advised.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010238012025

2025:GAU-AS:15254

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6349/2025

M/S H.A. TRADERS

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DIPEN SARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O OF HARI CHANDRA SARMA, RESIDENT OF SILVER SPRING COMPLEX, BETKUCHI, LOKHRA, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781034

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SIKSHA AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 78101

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. H. Baruah, Standing Counsel

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 12.11.2025

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. H. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on

Page No.# 2/3

behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been settled by this Court vide a judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 in the case of M/s Rahul Enterprise and Another Vs. State of Assam and Another {WP(C) No.5574/2025} wherein this Court observed that the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 shall not act as a bar in the participation of the bidders unless and until there are orders passed for blacklisting by following the procedure mandated under law.

Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the facts mentioned in the case of M/s Rahul Enterprise (supra) inasmuch as, the Petitioner herein also could not participate on account of the Petitioner’s name being reflected in the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025.

This Court had also perused the material facts of the present writ petition as well as the judgment passed by this Court dated 04.11.2025 and is of the opinion that the directions so passed in the said judgment would apply insofar as the Petitioner in the instant case and more particularly at Paragraph No.30 therein. For the sake of clarity, this Court makes it clear that for the present procurement process of school uniforms, no effective orders can be passed insofar as the Petitioner is concerned. This Court further observes that till orders are not passed for debarment/blacklisting, the Petitioner herein by following the mandate of law, the Respondents herein cannot debar the Petitioner to participate in future procurement process subject to fulfilling the other eligible

Page No.# 3/3

conditions.

This Court further observes that the findings and observations made herein however shall not preclude the Respondents as well as the Authority concerned to take steps for blacklisting or debarment of the Petitioner, if so advised by following the mandate of law.

With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant