GUWAHATI- 781029 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.

2:PRIYANKA DASWIFE OF SRI PRANAB DAS RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 46A BASISTHA CHARIALI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781029

3:M/S FRIEND ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BHASKARJYOTI BARUAH HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MORANKARI HANDIQUE GAON NAMTI DOLL SIVASAGAR DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM

4:M/S MEDICOS AND ENGINEERINGREPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. FOIZUDDIN AHMED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HATIPOTI P.S.- GELAKI DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

5:JAYANTA KHAUND PROPRIETOR K.B. ROAD WARD NO. 11 P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT- NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------

Advocate for : MITHUMONI KATAKY Advocate for : appearing for M/S CONSULTING ENGINEER (NG) AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of Judgment & Order : 04.03.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. Hridip Kumar Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant in WA No. 354/2024. Also heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel, and Ms. M. M. Kataky, learned standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in WA No. 354/2024. None has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No. 8 & 9.

Heard Ms. M. M. Kataky, learned standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA No. 27/2025. Also heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel, and Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in WA No. 27/2025. None has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5.

2. Since the facts involved in the above-noted writ appeals are identical and in the appeals, the challenge presented being to the judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3526/2024; both the writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment & order.

3. The appellants, herein, in above-noted writ appeals by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeals, have presented a challenge to the judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3526/2024, allowing the said writ petition by interfering with the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee declaring the bid of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in both these appeals, to be non-

responsive.

4. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in these writ appeals, is noticed as under:

The Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, had floated a Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 23.02.2024, inviting bids for the work of construction of new Multicare Hospital including Logistics at Joysagar in Sibsagar District under SOPD-G Scheme.

In pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT), dated 23.02.2024, the appellant in WA 354/2024, along with respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and others, had submitted their respective bids. The said Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) laid down a 2-stage evaluation of the bids. Accordingly, the st technical bid of the bidders were considered at the 1 stage by the Tender Evaluation Committee and on such consideration while the bid of the appellant, herein, in WA 354/2024, along with that of respondents No. 8 & 9, therein; were found to be responsive; the bid of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was found to be non-responsive on the ground that the labour license as submitted by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was valid for Kamrup(Metro) District only.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee in holding its bid to be non-responsive; the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had assailed the said decision by way of instituting before the writ Court a writ petition being WP(c)3526/2024.

The learned Single Judge, upon considering the issues arising in the said writ petition as well as upon hearing the parties to the proceeding, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 23.09.2024, in WP(c)3526/2024, to allow the writ petition by int