Gauhati High Court
The Bandaligaon (Reserve) Min S.S. Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 17 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010249742025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/369/2025
1.THE BANDALIGAON (RESERVE) MIN S.S. LTD.
BANDALIGAON, P.O., P.S. DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY, SHRIKHANINBEPARI OF THE ABOVE S.S. LIMITED
2: SRI KHANIN BEPARI
S/O LT. SANKARLALBEPARI
SECRETARY OF BANDALIGAON RESERVE MIN S.S LTD.
P.O. CHENGA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN. 78130
VERSUS
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA
DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM
3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (FISHERY
BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SARTHEBARI REVENUE CIRCLE
DISTRICTBARPETA ASSAM
5:THE DISTRICT FISHERY OFFICER
BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. N. Baruah, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Chutia, Standing Counsel, Fisheries Department.
Page No.# 2/4
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
17.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned Advocate for the
appellants and Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Fisheries
Department.
2. The appellant/Society has questioned the judgment dated
24.10.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
No.5987/2025, refusing to interfere with the re-tendering of the fishing
rights, even though the tender documents were compliant of the
Government Circular dated 18.01.2018.
3. The appellant/Society had been granted fishing rights in No.64
Barghopa Beel Fishery way back in the year 2016 for a period of 7(seven)
years, which expired on 25.01.2024.
4. The contention of the appellant/Society is that during this
period, the Covid pandemic set in, leading to heavy losses. There was
growth of hyacinth also in the pond which disrupted the flow of water
into it. The other cause of loss was the act of god, namely, less rainfall
and, therefore, less water in the pond.
Despite these, the appellant/Society continued with their
fishing rights and their obligations towards the State.
Page No.# 3/4
5. The Government, thereafter, issued another Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) on 04.03.2025 for settlement of the fishing rights in the above-
noted fishery.
6. The contention of the appellant/Society is that the NIT was
totally compliant of the gazette Notification dated 18.01.2018.
7. The appellant/Society participated in the bid and was
returned the highest bidder.
However, vide letter dated 16.08.2025, the fishery rights were
put to re-tender for the reason of a Supreme Court decision in Teteliguri
Navajyoti Matsyajibi Samabay Samity Limited Cooperative Society
Vs. the State of Assam & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (c) No(s).18318/2024, dated 21.05.2025], wherein it was held
that all the tendering authority will insert a clause in all NITs indicating that
the Government Circular dated 18.01.2018 shall be followed as long as
the same is in force.
8. The contention of the appellant/Society before the Writ Court
was that the words, viz. "Government Circular dated 18.01.2018" may not
have been incorporated in the NIT but all the conditions mentioned in
the Circular dated 18.01.2018 were inserted.
There was, thus, no necessity of putting the Fishery to a re-
tender.
9. The learned Single Judge, based on the direction of the
Supreme Court and finding that it was not clearly indicated in the NIT
Page No.# 4/4
paper that the Circular dated 18.01.2018 is in force and shall apply
proprio- vigore in all such tenders, justified the re-tendering of fishery right.
10. During the course of arguments, we have found that the
appellants/Society has participated in the re-tender. The objection of the
appellant is but that in the last tender, his price offer was disclosed and
this will put him in a disadvantageous position in the new tender.
11. However, considering the fact that the appellant/Society has
already participated in the fresh tender and that it was not clearly stated
in the tender paper that the conditions, which have to be complied with,
are the conditions which have been enumerated in the Government
Circular dated 18.01.2018, the NIT does not remain compliant.
We, thus, do not find it necessary to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
12. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
