The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process must be fair and non-discriminatory, failing which it is amenable to judicial review.

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest department, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. By issuing Sale notice dated 29.08.2013, the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia (DFO for short) (i.e. respondent No.3) had invited tender for granting mining contract for collection of boulder, stone, sand, sand gravel, gravel, earth/ silt of various mining areas including the mining contract area called NKD-M-14 of Mangaldai River for 7 years. For the said mining area, 6 (six) bidders had submitted their tender. On the opening of tender, the DFO had prepared a comparative statement and the petitioner was found to be second highest bidder with his offer of Rs.17,17,786/-.

3. It is projected that at the time of opening of the tender, the petitioner had observed certain discrepancies in the bid submitted by the private respondent No.4. Hence, on 23.10.2013, the petitioner had submitted his written objection before the DFO and prayed for rejection of the tender of the respondent No.4 on the ground that the respondent No.4 had not submitted the necessary documents like (i) Financial Soundness Certificate from Deputy Commissioner, Darrang ('FSC' for short), and (ii) TIN certificate from Sale Tax Department. Thereafter, on 20.12.2013, the petitioner had submitted a similar petition before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force (respondent No.2), praying for cancellation of tender submitted by the respondent No.4. However, vide Letter No. FG.24/NKD-B-14. Mangaldai River/2013-20 dated 20.12.2013, the respondent No.2 had directed the respondent No.3 to issue provisional Letter of Intent ('LoI' for short) in respect of mining contract area, i.e., NKD-4-14 [(sic.) should have been NKD-M-14 of Mangaldai River] to respondent No.4, subject to production of FSC within 26.12.2013 before issuing LoI. As per RTI information provided to the petitioner, it was disclosed that vide impugned letter No. B/NHL/5135/38 dated 27.12.2013, the respondent No.3 had issued the Provisional LoI to the respondent No.4 in respect of NKD-D-14 Mining Contract area of Mangaldai River [(sic.) should have been NKD-M-14 Mining Contract Area], by granting further 7 (seven) days' time to the respondent No.4 to produce the additional documents as mentioned in the letter of respondent No.2.

4. By his RTI application dated 03.01.2014, the petitioner sought for information from the Public Information Officer (PIO for short), Office of respondent No.2 as well as from the PIO, Office of the DFO (respondent No.3). However, it is projected that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the requisite documents were not furnished to the petitioner.

5. It is projected in the writ petition that till 08.01.2014, the petitioner had not submitted the additional documents as sought for by the respondents. Hence, on 09.01.2014, the petitioner made a request to the respondent No.2 to issue LOI in favour of the petitioner on failure of the respondent No.4 to submit the required additional documents, which was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 for consideration. It is also stated that later on, the respondent No.4 had submitted the additional documents before the respondent No.2 in the 3rd week of January 2014 and it is projected that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent No.3 did not issue any order for obtaining Environment Impact Assessment (EIA for short) clearance from the competent authority and it is also projected that the respondent No.4 had not deposited any earnest money before the respondent No.3 till the date of filing of the writ petition. Hence, challenging the issuance of LoI to the respondent No.4, the present writ pe