RAMESH SAIKIA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS Advocate - GA, ASSAM, ,A GHOSAL,MR. M BISWAS — WP(C) /1889/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section ART 226. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
CNR: GAHC010065132026
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
26-03-2026
Filing Number
WP(C) /3686/2026
Filing Date
26-03-2026
Registration No
WP(C) /1889/2026
Registration Date
30-03-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Coram
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
10148 - Other settlements relating to settlements made by the State Govt and Other Authorities.. ( 141 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMESH SAIKIA
Adv. MR. A DEKA,R DEB,R DEB, ,MR. S BORTHAKUR,MS. S KAKATI,R DEB
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS Advocate - GA (Government Advocate), ASSAM, ,A GHOSAL,MR. M BISWAS
THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MARIANI MUNICIPAL BOARD
THE CHAIRPERSON
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI UTPAL GOGOI
SRI LAKHYAJIT GOGOI
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
MOTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
Summary Writ petition adjourned. The Gauhati High Court issued notice returnable on 04.05.2026 in a petition challenging the Mariani Municipal Board's tender process. The petitioner's technical bid for a Zone-1 renovation contract was rejected for lacking a bank solvency certificate and failing to meet the ₹5 Crore minimum turnover requirement, while another bidder was declared L-1. The court directed the petitioner to serve copies on all respondents within specified timelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Writ petition adjourned. The Gauhati High Court issued notice returnable on 04.05.2026 in a petition challenging the Mariani Municipal Board's tender process. The petitioner's technical bid for a Zone-1 renovation contract was rejected for lacking a bank solvency certificate and failing to meet the ₹5 Crore minimum turnover requirement, while another bidder was declared L-1. The court directed the petitioner to serve copies on all respondents within specified timelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts