GAHC010031302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/901/2026 BINOY BHUSON NATH S/O BRINDABON NATH, VILL. SAYEDBOND PART I, P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI 37

3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTHERN ASSAM CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788001

4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

PIN 78815

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY, MR N RAHMAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

18.02.2026 Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for all the respondents.

By an e-Auction Sale Notice dated 06.01.2026, bids were invited online for settlement of four Minor Mineral Concession areas, namely, [i] Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-1[A] [‘the Mining Unit no. 1’, for short]; [ii] Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-1[C] [‘the Mining Unit no. 2’, for short]; [iii] Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-2 [‘the Mining Unit no. 3’, for short]; and [iv] Lalachera Sand Mining Contract Unit [‘the Mining Unit no. 4’, for short]. The petitioner submitted bids in respect of the Mining Unit no. 1, the Mining Unit no. 2 & the Mining Unit no. 3. The technical bids were evaluated and petitioner came to know about the same on 13.02.2016 when the summary report was uploaded. As per the summary report, the technical bids of the petitioner are rejected. But, no reason has been assigned for rejection of the technical bids of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has placed a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, held on 12.02.2026. After evaluation of the technical bids of the petitioner, the same were found non-compliant for the following reasons :-

[i] Net Worth Requirement : The Net Worth certificate submitted by the petitioner is found to be non-compliant with Clause 5.2.1[3] of the Bid Documents of the e-Auction. Accordingly, the requirement stipulated under the afore-mentioned clause has not been fulfilled.

[ii] Non-submission of ESIC monthly details : Although the bidder has submitted the ESIC Registration Certificate, the mandatory monthly contribution details for the preceding two years have not been furnished. This constitutes non-compliance with Clause5.2.9[b] of the Bid Document of the said e-Auction.

[iii] The bidder did not submit the mandatory Bakijai Certificate as required under the terms and conditions of the e-Auction, hence, the bids of the petitioner were not approved by default.

In view of such reasons, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for listing of the case on 23.02.2026 to complete his instructions.

List the case accordingly on 23.02.2026.

The copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, held on 12.02.2026, placed by Mr. Gogoi is kept with the case record.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant