THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Shri Hementa Kumar Nath Son Of Banamali Nath And Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Reresented By The Principal Secretary To The Govt Of Assam And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 6324 of 2025
Decided On : 10-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tender settlement dispute regarding balisatra market. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners' challenge based on tender interpretation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. defendants argue lack of standing for petitioners. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's interpretation of tender terms and rules. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. RR Kakati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. N Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P & RD Department and Mr. Surajit Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. DA Kaiyyum, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondent No.5.
2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the settlement made in respect of Balisatra Half weekly market dated 22.09.2025 in favour of the respondent No.5 at an amount of Rs.66,23,866/- on the ground that the rate at which the respondent No.5 have been granted the settlement is contrary to Clause 12 of the Tender Notice dated 07.06.2025 and the continuation Notice dated 16.06.2025.
3. Taking into account that the dispute involved relates to interpretation of the terms of the Tender Notice and Rule 47(1) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules 2002, (for short, ‘the Rules of 2002’), this Court issues Rule, returnable forthwith as all the respondents are duly represented.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad had issued a Tender Notice dated 07.06.2025 for settlement of various markets under the Nagaon Zilla Parishad for a period of one year i.e. from 2025-26 with effect from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026. The market, in question, which is the subject matter of present adjudication is Balisatra Half-weekly market (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the market in question’), wherein the Government value of the said market in question was mentioned as Rs.83,00,410.00p and the earnest money deposit to be Rs.8,30,041.00p. The term of the said Tender Notice which has led to the present dispute in question is Clause 12. The translated portion of the same as certified by the petitioners’ counsel to be the true translation reads as under:
“12. In respect of tender for all Bazar/Ghat, the tender offering highest value at the rate of the average of settlement value of previous three years along with an increase within the cap of 10% on three years average value will be accepted for consideration.”
5. Pursuant to the said Tender Notice, a Continuation Notice was issued on 16.06.2025. In terms with the said Continuation Notice, the three years settlement value as well as the average of the three years settled value of all the markets, to be settled by the Tender Notice dated 07.06.2025 by the Office of the Nagaon Zilla Parishad were mentioned. In addition to that the 10% increase thereon was also mentioned. The said Continuation Notice being relevant is reproduced hereinunder. The below reproduction of the Continuation Notice is the translated copy which was certified to be the correct translation by the petitioners’ counsel is as under:
“Notice
34. It is hereby notified that the three-years average of the government value of the markets for which tender for settlement has been invited by the office of Nagaon Zilla Parishad vide Notice No.NZP-708/Hat/Beel/2025-26/2345-35 dated 07/06/2025, and 10% increase thereon are as follows for the purpose of inviting tenders from interested bidders:
| Name of the market | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | 2024-25 | Average value 10% increase | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Kothiatoll Half-weekly market | 1400999 | 2599999.00 | 2599999.00 | 2200332.00 | 2420366.00 |
| Juria Half- weekly | 1215000.00 | 1338000.00 | 1338000.00 | 1297000.00 | 1426700.00 |
| market | |||||
| Shantijan Half-weekly market | 7321103.00 | 8700000.00 | 8700000.00 | 8240368.00 | 9064404.00 |
| Balisatra Half-weekly market | 1,40,01,050 | 15200000.00 | 15200000.00 | 14800350.0 | 16280385.00 |
| Rupahi weekly market | 4671999.00 | 4661111.00 | 4661111.00 | 4664740.00 | 5131214.00 |
It is mentioned here that the tenders o
The court ruled that no lowest rate for bids is mandated by applicable rules, allowing a tender to be settled below the three-year average.
A bid submitted above the permissible limit set by tender requirements is invalid if it fails to comply with mandatory documentation requirements.
Point of Law : Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not and it is only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelm....
A party cannot challenge the validity of a clause in the middle of the selection proceedings if they did not challenge it earlier.
Failure to challenge a clause in the tender notice during the selection process precludes a party from challenging it later.
Process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 6 is found to be vitiated one due to taking into account irrelevant factors in the decision making process....
Fairness demanded that the tendering authority should have disclosed to all the tenderers beforehand that the bid value above a particular amount or above a particular percentage of the scheduled rat....
Point of Law : Process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 9 is found to be arbitrary and irrational one.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.