GAHC010212112025 2025:GAU-AS:15321

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

WP(C)/4561/2025

ASUR UDDIN

S/O KUDDUS ALI R/O VILL BALACHAR PART III PS MERERCHAR PO

KIRTANPARA DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783384

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT ASSAM GUWAHATI 6

2:THE COMMISSIONER

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT ASSAM PANJABARI

JURIPAR GUWAHATI 37

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

BONGAIGAON

ASSAM PIN 783380

4:THE BONGAIGAON ZILL PARISHAD

REP BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783380

5:THE SRIJANGRAM ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT

ABHAYPURI SRIJANGRAM REP BY THE PRESIDENT OF DIST BONGAIGAON

ASSAM PIN 783384

6:THE BALARCHAR MATRAGHOLA GAON PANCHAYAT

REP BY THE PRESIDENT DIST BONGAIGAON ASSA PIN 783384

7:THE SECRETARY OF BALARCHAR MATRAGHOLA GAON PANCHAYAT

PS MERERCHAR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783384

8:ABDUL MANNAN SIDDIKI S/O HAJRAT ALI VILL BALARCHAR PART II PS MERERCHAR PO KIRTANPARA DIST BONGAIGON ASSAM PIN 783384 ------------

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. AK Azad Advocates for the respondent(s) :Mr. S Dutta, Standing Counsel P & RD Department Mr. DA Kaiyyum for respondent No.8 Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12.11.2025 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. AK Azad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the P & RD Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. DA Kaiyyum, the learned counsel, who represents the respondent No.8 in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the settlement order dated 30.07.2025 whereby the Mulbari Balarchar Matraghola Ghat has been settled in favour of the respondent No.8.

3. The facts in the instant case are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Executive Officer of the respondent No.5 for settlement of Mulbari Balarchar Matraghola Ghat under the Balarchar Matraghola Gaon Panchayat for the year 2025-26 i.e. from 01.08.2025 to 30.06.2026. In the said Notice Inviting Tender various clauses were mentioned, but relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute is Clause 13 of the said Notice Inviting Tender. The translated Clause 13 as certified by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is reproduced as under:

“13. Only the highest tender submitted at the rate of 10% of the average price including the average settlement price of the last three years will be accepted for consideration in all Bazar/Ghat/Meenmahal/pond.”

4. Various bidders submitted their bids including the petitioner. It is the categorical statement of the petitioner that the petitioner’s bid value was Rs.2,99,999/- and the bid of the respondent No.8 was Rs.1,34,167/-. However, the bid of the respondent No.8 was accepted and by the communication dated 30.07.2025, the respondent No.8 was settled with the Mulbari Balarchar Matraghola Ghat at an amount of Rs.1,34,167/- for the period from 01.08.2025 to 30.06.2026. It is under such circumstances, that the present writ petition has been filed.

5. This Court vide an order dated 13.08.2025 issued notice making it returnable on 22.08.2025. On 22.08.2025, the respondent authorities through the learned Standing Counsel of the P & RD Department duly submitted that the interpretation of Clause 13 of the tender notice by the respondent authorities does not appear to be proper in the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the Parghat in question had not been settled for the last 3(three) years.

6. This Court, further taking into account the comparative statement, wherein it was apparently clear that the petitioner’s bid was higher than that of the respondent No.8 stayed the order dated 30.07.2025 of the settlement of Mulbari Balarchar Matraghola Ghat made in favour