The court emphasizes the necessity for transparency and fairness in administrative decision-making regarding public tenders, holding that a lack of proper publication in tender processes undermines competitive bidding.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. MU Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. AK Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the BTC.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 for settlement of 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district and upon cancellation of the said tender process going ahead with a fresh tender process, without proper publication.

3. The facts as it appears from the materials on record is that on 24.03.2025, the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fishery Department BTC, Kokrajhar had issued a notice inviting tender for settlement of various fisheries including 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district for a period of 3(three) years. The petitioner had participated in the said Tender process along with various other bidders. The said tender was opened on 24.03.2025 and out of the 8 bidders, 5 bids were found to be valid.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the highest eligible bidder. Be that as it may, a corrigendum was issued on 25.03.2025, wherein the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 was cancelled due to some administrative reasons by the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fisheries Department, BTC Kokrajhar. Subsequent, thereto, it is the further case of the petitioner that another Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 05.05.2025 by the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fisheries Department for settlement of various fisheries including 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district, fixing the tender value at Rs.1,70,000/- with the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025. As there was no wide publication of the said Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner had no notice about the same and it was only on the basis of an information divulged under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner could come to learn about the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025. The petitioner also came to learn that on 07.07.2025, the respondent No.6 was settled with the said fishery at Rs.1,70,000/- for the purpose of catching fish to be conducted on payment of annual rent and that too, when the said private respondent No.6 did not participate in the earlier tender process.

5. Under such circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier tender process by Corrigendum dated 02.05.2025 as well as initiation of a fresh Tender process, that too, by not publishing the Tender Notice in the manner in which it ought to have been published and thereupon settling the said fishery in favour of the respondent No.6 at a rate much lower than the rate quoted by the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

6. The record reveals that this Court by an order dated 11.08.2025 issued notice. However, no interim order was passed on the said date with an observation that this Court may consider passing of an interim order after the stand of the respondents is brought on record.

7. Pursuant thereto, this Court vide an order dated 18.11.2025, taking into account the materials placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel of the BTC and finding that the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025 was not widely circulated, stayed the settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 till today.

8. Today, Mr. AK Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel of the BTC appeared and placed before this