GAHC010154032025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4035/2025

JIBAN BARMAN

S/O- LATE SACHINDRA BARMAN, VILL.- JOGIRVITA, P.O. TULSIBIL, P.S.

GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 783337.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

REPERSENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY

DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE DIRECTOR CUM CHD FISHERY DEPARTMENT

MEEN BHAWAN

GOPINATH NAGAR

GUWAHATI-16

ASSAM

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

BTC

KOKRAJHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 783337.

4:THE JOINT SECRETARY

FISHERY DEPARTMENT

BTC

KOKRAJHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 783337.

5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR CUM CHD

FISHERY DEPARTMENT

BTC

KOKRAJHAR

ASSAM PIN- 783337.

6:DATSUNG BRAHMA S/O- SHRI INDRA KUMAR BRAHMA VILL. AND P.O. KAMALSING P.S. GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 783336 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. U. Mondal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. R. Sharma, SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 18.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. N. R. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.6 in spite of service being affected.

2. The matter has been heard at length.

3. Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the cancellation of the earlier tender process and to go ahead with the fresh tender process was with the sole objective of granting the settlement in favour of the Respondent No.6. Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel submits that this aspect is apparently clear inasmuch as, in respect to the Notice Inviting Tender which was issued on 24.03.2025, it was widely published in both English as well as in Assamese language newspapers which were widely circulated in the area. However for reasons best known, after cancellation of the entire tender process, the Respondent Authorities have published a fresh Notice Inviting Tender in a Bodo Language Newspaper which is not even widely circulated and this aspect would be apparent from the very affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the Respondent No.5.

4. This Court having taken note of the reasons so assigned in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is the prima facie opinion of this Court that the non-publishing of the Notice Inviting Tender thereby granting the settlement in favour of the Respondent No.6 in a widely circulated newspaper takes away the rights of the interested bidders and such action violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. This aspect however would be further clear upon records being perused by this Court.

5. Mr. N. R. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel submits that one week’s time would be required for placing the records.

6. Considering the above, this Court therefore fixes this matter again on 04.12.2025.

7. The settlement so made in favour of the Respondent No.6 vide the order dated 07.07.2025 shall remain stayed till the next date.

8. The Respondent Authorities shall be at liberty to run the fishery departmentally till the next date.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant