Paran Kumar Mahanta Vs the State of Assam — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Paran Kumar Mahanta Vs the State of Assam — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on merits; writ petition closed as infructuous, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if still aggrieved and possessed of a cause of action to seek any remedy in law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's technical bid, claimed to be responsive on all counts, was validly rejected by the Bid Evaluation Committee (or arbitrarily rejected), and whether the allocation of the contract-work in favour of respondent nos. 6 & 7 was improper. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fact that respondent nos. 6 & 7 had completed the contract-works by achieving 100% physical progress (evidenced by completion certificates dated 02.02.2026), the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition had become infructuous; accordingly, the writ petition was closed on that count, without adjudication of the merits of the bid-rejection or allocation grievances.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if still aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities and having a cause of action under the law to seek any remedy in law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury) | WP(C)/7427/2025 | Order dated 04.02.2026 | Article 226 writ by Paran Kumar Mahanta challenging (i) rejection of his technical bid by the Bid Evaluation Committee, Irrigation Department, for non-submission of proof of ownership of lease/rent of equipment along with lease/rent agreement duly notarised (point no. 15 of Appendix/Check-List of the bid document), and (ii) allocation of the contract-work 'Installation of 2 nos. of MDTW Scheme under Nagaon-Batadrava LAC under SOPD-G for the year : 2025-26' to respondent nos. 6 & 7 (Sri Biswajit Borah and Sri Kuntal Baruah). The Standing Counsel, Irrigation, responded that work-orders were awarded to respondent nos. 6 & 7 on 18.11.2025 with a three-month completion period, and placed completion certificates Nos. NBRBDI/TB/34/2025/822 and 823 dated 02.02.2026 (kept as Documents 'A' and 'B') showing 100% physical progress. Holding the subject-matter of challenge infructuous, the Court closed the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue any available remedy before the appropriate forum.

Page No. 1/3

GAHC010285472025

2026:GAU-AS:1420

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

Case No. : WP(C)/7427/2025

PARAN KUMAR MAHANTA

S/O LATE RUPENDRA NATH MAHANTA, R/O BIREN MAHANTA PATH, AMULAPATTY, NAGAON - 781001.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR- 781006.

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHTATI-781003

3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON CIRCLE IRRIGATION NAGAON 782003

4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

T.C I-C NAGAON CIRCLE IRRIGATION NAGOAN ASSAM-782003.

5:THE BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY IT CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAGAON CIRCLE IRRIGATION NAGAON 782003

6:SRI BISWAJIT BORAH

Page No. 2/3

S/O SHRI NALINI PRASAD BORAH R/O HOUSING COLONY HOUSING COLONY MIC 3U4 NEAR AMULAPATTY CREMATORIUM AMULAPATTY NAGAON ASSAM PIN782001.

7:SRI KUNTAL BARUAH S/O LALIT CHANDRA BARUAH R/O EAST AMULAPATTY NEAR KALI MANDIR NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001

Advocate for the Petitioner : M DAS, A GOSWAMI,MR. P MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 04.02.2026

Heard Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1 – 4.

The petitioner had preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that being eligible, he participated in a bidding process initiated by the respondent authorities in the Irrigation Department for a contract-work : ‘Installation of 2 nos. of MDTW Scheme under Nagaon-Batadrava LAC under SOPD-G for the year : 2025-26’. The Bid Evaluation Committed during technical bid evaluation had rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the proof of ownership of lease/rent of equipment along with lease/rent agreement duly notarised as per the point no. 15 of Appendix/Check-List of the bid document. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner had submitted his bid complying with all the essential conditions and his bid was responsive

Page No. 3/3

on all counts and as such, the technical bid rejection on the afore-stated ground was arbitrary. The petitioner has also challenged the allocation of the contract-work in favour of the respondent nos. 6 & 7 by the respondent authorities in the Irrigation Department.

Mr. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has submitted that the work-orders in respect of the contract-work, which is under challenge in this writ petition, was awarded to the respondent nos. 6 & 7 on 18.11.2025 and as per the bid document, the time period for completion of the contract-work was three months from the date of the handing over of the sites. Placing two certificates bearing no. NBRBDI/TB/34/2025/822 dated 02.02.2026 and no. NBRBDI/TB/34/2025/823 dated 02.02.2026, issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4 [marked and kept as Document ‘A’ and Document ‘B’ with the case record], he has submitted that the respondent nos. 6 & 7 have, in the meantime, completed the contract-works by achieving 100% physical progress.

In view of the above obtaining fact situation, the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is closed on that count. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in the event the petitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities and has a cause of action under the law to seek any remedy in law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant