WP(C) 3565/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM Heard Mr. D.A. Khaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Roy, learn ed Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the state res pondents. The challenge in this writ petition is against the issuance of two NITs on the s ame day which have made difficult for the petitioner to ascertain as to which of the two NITs will be the valid one though he has submitted his bid in respect o f the first NIT. Mr. Roy, learned Additional senior Govt. Advocate submits that two writ petitions, namely, W.P.(c) No. 2916/2010 (Kanak Ch. Das Vs. State of A ssam & Ors) and W.P.' No. 3222/2010 (Durlav Medhi & Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors) were filed before this court for the same subject matter and in these two cases, the Government has made categorical statement in the affidavit-in-opposit ion that on discovery of certain mistake in the first NIT, it was promptly corre cted by issuing a corrigendum within one hour to rectify the mistake. Therefore, it is submitted that it is very much within the power and competency of the aut hority to correct any mistake in the NIT that too within a period of one hour fr om the issuance of the first NIT. Needless to say that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act lays down that the po wer to issue any order includes the power to rectify or modify the same. Therefo re, the source of power to rectify the earlier NIT within a period of one hour i s permissible under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The contentions of the respondents in the earlier writ petitions have been accepted by this cou rt vide order-dated 11.06.2010 passed in those two cases referred to above. Thus , the issue has already been settled by this court and the same cannot be reopen ed and the principal of issue estoppel is squarely applicable in this case. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am not inclined to ent ertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained. However, Mr. D.A. Khaiyum, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a sub mission that the petitioner has already submitted his bid and it may be directed that his bid may be considered by the respondent authority. Mr. M. Dutta, learn ed counsel for the intervener has submitted that a comparative statement has alr eady been prepared by the authority on the basis of bids submitted by the tender ers. Mr. P. Roy, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate has also submitted tha t the settlement of market under the impugned NIT has not been finalized in view of the status-quo order passed by this court. In view of the statement of the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, it is provided that the bid offered by the petitioner shall be considered by the resp ondents while deciding the settlement of the market/hat. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.