Disposed¶29

Ms Tharu and Sons v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC10 Feb 2026WP(C)/6159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/6159/2025; M/s Tharu and Sons v. Union of India and others (including M/s Leotech Process); order dated 11-02-2026 by Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair; challenge to recommendation for allotment of work under e-tender No. M-TSK-2025-34 (Sr. DME, Tinsukia, North East Frontier Railway); tender discharged during pendency; writ petition closed as infructuous; liberty reserved to assail the discharge of the tender; no statute or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as having been rendered infructuous; liberty granted to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to assail the discharge of the tender by the railway respondents. ¶29

Ms Tharu and Sons Vs the Union of India — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010240202025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6159/2025

¶6

MS THARU AND SONS REP BY BINEESH BABY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,KALAMASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, NORTH KALAMASSERY,NEAR METRO PILLAR NO. 250, .O.-KALAMASSERY, DISTRICTERNAKULAM,KERALA-683104, DULY REPRESENTED BYITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, NAMELY MR.BINEESH BABY, AGE 34, S/O- BABY, VETTIYATTI HOUSE, VASUPURAM, MATTATHUR, MATTATHURKKUNNU, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680684

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶9

REP BY THE SECY. TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, 256-,RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶11

3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER (SR. DME) TINSUKIA NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY

¶12

4:M/S LEOTECH PROCESS 10-26 RAMALAYAM STREET ENIKEPADU VIJAYWADA-521108

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

ANDHRA PRADES

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G G GOGOI, A TALUKDAR,MR. P BOIRAGI,MR. J I BORBHUIYA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN(C.G.C),N R SURANA (OP4)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 11-02-2026

¶21

Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. N.R. Surana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶22

The present writ petition has been instituted assailing the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 4 for allotment of the work in question which was tendered vide e-tender No. M-TSK-2025-34. The petitioner has questioned the eligibility of the respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition for being allotted the work in question.

¶23

Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the railway authorities, on instruction, submits that the respondents have in the meanwhile discharged the said tender being tender No. M-TSK-2025-34. The said position is also affirmed by Mr. N.R. Surana, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4.

¶24

In view of the fact that the very tender has now been discharged, the allotment of the work in question cannot be made with the respondent No. 4 and a fresh tender process would be mandated in this connection.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

In view of the above, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶27

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 are at liberty to assail the discharge of the tender in question by the railway respondents.

¶28

A copy of the instruction furnished by Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC is kept on record marked as ‘X’.

¶29

Writ petition stands closed as having been rendered infructuous.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Ms Tharu and Sons v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Tharu and Sons v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sambhu Charan Barman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

National Health Mission Employees Association, Assam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sabitri Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Pradip Borbora Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipmoni Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Tilottama Boro Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.