GAHC010031642026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/898/2026 MAZAHARUL HOQUE S/O SRI NURUL HOQUE, VILL. UPPER DUMDUMIA, P.O. BALISATRA, DIST.

NAGAON, ASSAM.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06.

2:THE SPECIAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAON ZILLA PARISHAD NAGAON P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON.

ASSAM 782001.

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHING ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O. DHING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782123 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DUTTA, MR. D A KAIYUM,MR. M S MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

18.02.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents.

2. By a Tender Notice dated 07.06.2025, the respondent no. 3 invited bids for settlement of a nos. of markets including ‘Balisatra Bi-Weekly market’ [‘the Market’, for short]. The minimum yearly revenue for the Market was fixed at Rs. 83,00,401/-. In the bidding process, the petitioner and four other bidders participated by submitting their bids. After evaluation of bids, the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder and an Order of Settlement was issued in favour of the petitioner on 22.09.2025. The petitioner has been settled with the Market for the period from 22.09.2025 to 30.06.2026 at a bid value of Rs. 66,23,866/- after proportionately deducting the amount quoted by the petitioner for the entire settlement year @ Rs. 84,01,001/-. The settlement made in favour of the petitioner was challenged by two persons in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6324/2025. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2025. When the matter was taken to the Division Bench by way of an intra-court appeal, W.A. no. 378/2025, the writ appeal was also dismissed on 20.01.2026. Subsequently on 11.02.2026, the respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned Order deciding that the Market should be re-tendered for settlement and till the time of new settlement, the Zilla Parishad would operate the Market departmentally. The Order dated 11.02.2026 is followed by an Office Order dated 16.02.2026 of the respondent no. 3 whereby the settlement made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. Issue notice, returnable on 25.03.2026.

4. As Mr. Dutta has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of all the respondents, issuance of formal notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Mr. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Dutta within 3 [three] working days from today.

5. The learned counsel for the parties are also heard on the interim prayer.

6. The basis to cancel the settlement of the Market is traceable to a Notice dated 16.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 wherein the average settlement value of the Market on the basis of last three years settlement amount was mentioned. The Notice dated 16.06.2025 was subsequent to the Notice dated 07.06.2025. The last date of bid submission was 22.07.2025. Despite the Notice dated 16.06.2025, the respondent authorities accepted the bids and after evaluation, passed the Settlement Order at a value which was higher than the yearly minimum revenue mentioned in the Tender Notice dated 07.06.2025. In the impugned Order, the respondent no. 2 has made observation that the Market could have been settled at a much higher settlement amount and settlement of the Market with the petitioner at his quoted bid value has resulted in loss of revenue to the State Exchequer.

7. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department has canvassed that loss of revenue is the prime facto