SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 735

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Surajit Rabha, S/o. Tangun Rabha – Petitioner
Versus 
Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) represented by its Principal Secretary – Respondent 
Writ Petition (C) No. 6863 of 2025 
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S. Hoque, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. N. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, BTC, Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel

Statutory mandates requiring electronic auctions for mineral concessions override alternative tender methods. Administrative cancellation of a tender process to ensure compliance with mandatory statutory procedures is valid, as bidders hold no vested right to a contract before formal execution.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 15 and 23C - Statutory Rules - Mandatory nature of electronic auction for grant of mineral concessions - Statutory mandate prevails over conflicting executive instructions - Legal maxim, ‘Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius’—If law requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, other methods are necessarily forbidden. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Tender process - Administrative decision - Cancellation of tender - Scope of judicial review - Principles of natural justice - A tender participant has no vested right in the outcome until a formal contract is concluded - Administrative cancellation to ensure compliance with statutory procedures is valid and not subject to interference. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 26)

Facts of the case:
A tender process was initiated for mineral extraction rights through a manual sealed bidding system. Although a bidder was declared successful, the authorities opted to cancel the process in favor of adopting a mandatory electronic auction mechanism, in accordance with updated statutory regulations. The bidder challenged the cancellation, seeking enforcement of the original tender award.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that delegated rules requiring electronic auctions are binding and cannot be superseded by executive memos suggesting alternative procurement portals. The decision to cancel the manual tender was held as a valid administrative action to ensure strict compliance with statutory law. The bidder, lacking a formal contract or letter of intent, possessed no enforceable vested right.

Issues: 1. Whether an electronic auction requirement in mineral concession rules supersedes existing manual tender procedures. 2. Whether a successful tenderer acquires a vested right to a contract prior to formal execution.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute mandates a specific procedure for a public interest activity, all other procedures are prohibited. Administrative authorities are entitled to cancel a tender process that fails to adhere to mandatory legal requirements. No vested right is created in the absence of a concluded contract, and judicial intervention is restricted to instances of bad faith or discrimination.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding tender issuance and subsequent cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments concerning cancellation of tender due to shift to e-auction. (Para 8 , 9)
3. statutory mandate to utilize e-auction for mining contracts per 2018 amendments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. absence of concluded contract or vested rights prior to valid issuance of loi. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. statutory rules override administrative executive memoranda. (Para 25)
6. dismissal of petition and order for refund of security deposits. (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC]; and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Divisional Forest Office, Baksa Forest Division, Mushalpur [the respondent no. 4] to settle a Minor Mineral Concession area, ‘Barnadi Sand Mahal No. 13’ forthwith in favour of the petitioner in terms of a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 25.08.2025 by setting aside and quashing a decision conveyed by the Executive Member, Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC] vide an Office Letter dated 12.11.2025 addressed to the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest -cum- CHD, BTC [the respondent no. 3].

3. The facts which are not in dispute, can be exposited at first, in order to appreciate the issues involved in the writ petition. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 25.08.2025, the respondent no. 4 invited sealed tenders with validity period of 180 days for grant of Mineral Concession as per the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 in certain specified Minor Mineral Concession areas [Mahals] within the Baksa Forest Division as per the schedule mentioned therein. One of the Mahals in which the Mineral Concession was to be granted by the NIT dated 25.08.2025 was ‘Barnadi Sand Mahal No. 13’ for the contract period : 2025-2032. It was informed to the bidders that the NIT contained details of the Minor Mineral Concession area [Mahal] along with the terms and conditions of grant and the same could be procured from the office of the respondent no. 4 during working hours on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by demand draft of the State Bank of India [SBI] payable in favour of the respondent no. 1.

4. As per the NIT, the last date of submission of sealed tenders was up to 02-00 p.m., 18.09.2025. In response to the NIT dated 25.08.2025, three bidders including the petitioner, submitted their sealed tenders for settlement of the Minor Mineral Concession area, ‘Barnadi Sand Mahal No. 13’. The tenders so received were opened and evaluated by a Bid Quotation Committee under the Chairmanship of the respondent no. 4 on 04.10.2025 in the office of the respondent no. 4. After opening of the bids, the Bid Quotation Committee prepared a Comparative Statement and recorded its comments as regards submission of essential documents / certificates, etc., by the respective participant bidder. Upon evaluation, the Bid Quotation Committee found that the petitioner with a tendered amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- emerged as the highest valid bidder [H-1]. The other two participant bidders’ tendered amounts were same, Rs. 18,20,000/-. Upon consideration, the Bid Quotation Committee decided to approve the bid of the petitioner and to allot Barnadi Sand Mahal No. 13 to him after observance of all official formalities.

5. The decision taken by the Bid Quotation Committee stood forwarded to the respondent no. 2 for approval. The respondent no. 2 vide an Office Letter dated 06.11.2025 conveyed to the respondent no. 3 that the Competent Authority in the Bodoland Territorial Counsel [BTC] had approved the highest quoted tender as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top