The court granted an interim stay on the handover of a mining contract where the petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case of being a highest bidder and challenged the responsiveness criteria and the auction methodology.

ORDER

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest & Environment Department for the respondent no. 1; Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 6 & 8.

2. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 24.11.2025, the respondent no. 7 invited bids for grant of mining contract for ‘Barnadi Earth and Sand Mahal no. 15’ [‘the Mining Contract Area’, for short] as per the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 for a contract period : 2025-2032. In response to the NIT, the petitioner and four others submitted their bids. After opening of the bids, the respondent authorities in the BTC evaluated the bids and prepared a comparative statement showing the rates offered by the bidders and the documents furnished by them qua the terms and conditions of the NIT.

3. The value of the proposed Mining Contract Area are is fixed at Rs. 15,18,000/- [annually]. The petitioner and the respondent no. 9 both had offered Rs. 18,97,500/-. The other three bidders quoted lesser bid values.

4. The respondent BTC authorities after evaluation of the bid, accepted the bid of the respondent no. 9 by adjudging the bid of the petitioner as non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the Income Tax Returns [ITR] for three years.

5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted the three years Income Tax Returns [ITR] as per Clause 12[d] of the Sale Notice dated 24.11.2025 and a categorical statement to that effect has also been made in the writ petition. He has further contended that as per Rule 32 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, the respondent BTC authorities are obligated to conduct the bidding process through e-Auction. But in the case in hand, the auction process was conducted through open tender process.

6. Ms. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has submitted that the decision to conduct bidding process of Mining Contract Areas through e-auction platform has been taken by the BTC authorities only 09.12.2025. As the present process was initiated prior to 09.12.2025, the challenge by the petitioner on that ground is not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner himself knowing well, had participated in the bidding process. As regards the contention raised regarding submission of the ITR, she has submitted that the records would reveal regarding such non-submission.

7. Issue notice, returnable on 30.03.2026.

8. As Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest & Environment Department has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1; Ms. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 & 8, issuance of formal notice to the said respondents is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to the learned above-mentioned learned counsel within 2 [two] working days from today.

9. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 by speed post within 2 [two] working days from today.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on t