Page No.# 1/ vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7986 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 24 October, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                               Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010183672025




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:14201

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/4752/2025

         PARESH BRAHMA
         SON OF - KAMALA BRAHMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AMBARI, P.O.-
         MUSHALPUR, P.S. - MUSHALPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
         DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

         2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
          BODOLAND
         TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM - 783370.

         3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE
          BTC
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM - 783370.

         4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          BAKSA
          BAKSA DISTRICT
          BTC
         ASSAM -781372.

         5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
          BAKSA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
          MUSHALPUR
          BAKSA
                                                                           Page No.# 2/10

             ASSAM - 781327.

            6:HEMANTA TALUKDAR
             SON OF - LATE NABIN TALUKDAR
             RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AHOPA
             PO - AHOPA
             PS - MUSHLAPUR
             IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K SARMA, MR. S BORUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S NATH (R-6),SC, BTC,SC, P AND R.D.




             Linked Case : WP(C)/4753/2025

            PARESH BRAHMA
            SON OF - KAMALA BRAHMA
             RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AMBARI
             P.O.- MUSHALPUR
             P.S. - MUSHALPUR
             IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA
            ASSAM


             VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
            PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI - 781006.

            2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
            BODOLAND
            TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
             KOKRAJHAR
            ASSAM - 783370.

            3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE
            BTC
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
            KOKRAJHAR
                                                Page No.# 3/10

ASSAM - 783370.

4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BAKSA
BAKSA DISTRICT
BTC
ASSAM -781372.

5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
TIHU-BARMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
BARMA
BAKSA
ASSAM - 781327.

6:DHRUBA BORO
SON OF - HONGLA BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DONGPAR
P.O. - BARIMAKHA
P.S. - BARBARI
IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. K SARMA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS



Linked Case : WP(C)/4804/2025

PARESH BRAHMA
SON OF - KAMALA BRAHMA
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AMBARI
 P.O.- MUSHALPUR
 P.S. - MUSHALPUR
 IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA
ASSAM


VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006.

2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                                                         Page No.# 4/10


          BODOLAND
          TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
          ASSAM - 783370.

          3:MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE
          BTC
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          KOKRAJHAR
          ASSAM - 783370.

          4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          BAKSA
          BAKSA DISTRICT
          BTC
          ASSAM -781372.

          5:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
          BAKSA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
          MUSHALPUR
          BAKSA
          ASSAM - 781327.

          6:BABURAM SWARGIARY
          SON OF - GARENDRA SWARGIARY
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NO. 2 CHALBARI
          PO - DHANBILL
          PS - BARBARI
          IN THE DISTRICT OF BAKSA
          ASSAM
          ------------




Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. K Sarma


Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. AK Bhuyan,
                                Standing Counsel, BTC
                                Mr. S Nath
                                Mr. UJ Saikia
                                Ms. S Boro
                                                                        Page No.# 5/10



                                     BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


                                      ORDER

24.10.2025

Heard Mr. K Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. AK Bhuyan, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the BTC and Mr. S Nath, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondent in WP(C)No.4752/2025. Mr. UJ Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondent in WP(C)No.4753/2025 and Ms. S Boro, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondent in WP(C)4804/2025.

2. The three writ petition raises identical issues and as such all the three writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

3. The issue which is involved in the present batch of writ petitions is as to whether the bank draft submitted by the bidder favouring the Principal Secretary, BTC purchased by another person for and on behalf of the bidder can be a valid tender of the offered bids.

4. The facts as would arise in the three writ petitions are:

All the three writ petitions relates to a Tender Notice dated 07.05.2025 for settlement of markets/Go-hats/Parking/Parghats/Ferries/Cattlepounds etc. for the year 2025-26 issued by the Block Development Officer, Baksa Development Block Mushalpur. In WP(C)No.4752/2025, the market in question is the Doomni Daily Market. In WP(C)No.4753/2025, the market in question is the Barimakha Page No.# 6/10

Open Market and in WP(C)No.4804/2025, the market in question is the Barbari Bi-weekly Market. Admittedly, the petitioner herein, who is the writ petitioner in all the three writ petitions submitted bids as against these markets and his bids were higher than that of the bids submitted by the private respondents in the three writ petitions. However, the markets in question had been settled in favour of the private respondents in all the three writ petitions. Resultantly, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC had submitted that on the ground that the bank draft so submitted by the petitioner as the offered rate was not a bank draft which was purchased by the petitioner and as such, the said bank draft could not have been taken into consideration.

6. An issue, therefore, arises as regards the interpretation of Clause 5 and 8[a] of the Tender Notice dated 07.05.2025. It is seen that the said issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Karuna Deury Vs. State of Assam & 6 Ors . (in WP(C) No.7889/2022) dated 21.04.2023, wherein the learned Coordinate Bench had opined that it is not a specific condition in Clause 5 read with Clause 8[a] of the Tender Notice that the purchaser of such bank draft must be the bidder himself.

7. This Court, therefore, finds it pertinent to quote paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are reproduced hereinunder:

"12. The petitioner has made Clause 5 and Clause 8[a] incorporated in the Tender Notice dated 20.06.2022 as the basis of his assailment in the instant writ petition. For ready reference, Clause 5 and Clause 8 of the Tender Notice dated 20.06.2022 are extracted hereinbelow :-

Clause 5 : The tenderer must have to deposit the offered rate fixed of Page No.# 7/10

the concerned Market/Go-hat/parking/Par Ghat/Ferry/ Cattle Pound, etc. In the form of Bank Draft which shall be made payable in favour of Principal Secretary of Bodoland Territorial Council at any Nationalized Bank along with tender documents to be a valid tenderer.

Clause 8 : The tenderer shall attached the tender with the following documents -

[a] Bank Draft of the value of the offered rate in terms of the Clause

5.

[b] Original Patta Land and Jamabandi Copy.

[c] Land Revenue Clearance Certificate.

[d] ST/SC Caste Certificate.

[e] Land Valuation Certificate against mortgage property.

[f] Sales Tax Clearance.

[g] Non-Incumbency Certificate. and

[h] Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer.

13. A conjoint reading of Clause 5 and Clause 8[a] goes to indicate that a participant bidder must necessarily deposit the amount offered by him in respect of the Market in the form of bank draft payable in favour of the Principal Secretary, BTC along with the tender documents at the time of submission of his tender. If any bidder did not submit such demand draft along with tender documents before the last date of submission of the tender, such a bidder was to be treated as an invalid bidder. The settlement of the Market offered by the respondent BTC authorities is in the nature of distribution of State largesses and the prime consideration for the Page No.# 8/10

respondent BTC authorities is maximization of revenue from such settlement. Clause 5 has made it specific that the bid value offered by a tender in the form of a bank draft must be payable in favour of the Principal Secretary, BTC and such demand draft is to be drawn at any nationalized bank for the entire amount offered by the bidder to get the settlement for the period offered for settlement.

14. In the case in hand, the demand draft submitted by the respondent no. 7 along with his bid on 24.06.2022 was a demand draft for a sum of ₹ 9,01,250.00 dated 24.06.2022, which was the amount offered for settlement by the respondent no. 7 for the entire period of settlement, and the same was made payable in favour of the Principal Secretary, BTC. It was not a specific condition in Clause 5 r/w Clause 8[a] of the Tender Notice that the purchaser of such bank draft must be the bidder himself. From a look at the demand draft bearing no. 27010642 dated 24.06.2022, deposited by the respondent no. 7, it is seen that the demand draft was purchased by one Hafijul Islam. It is asserted by the respondent no. 7 in its counter affidavit that Hafijul Islam is his employee and it was at the instruction of the respondent no. 7, Hafijul Islam purchased the demand draft on 24.06.2022. Hafijul Islam is not a party-respondent in the instant writ petition. It has not emerged from the records of settlement that Hafijul Islam who had purchased the demand draft, has made any compliant in connection with the demand draft bearing no. 27010642 dated 24.06.2022 drawn for the sum of ₹ 9,01,250.00 from the Union Bank of India."

8. In view of the law well settled by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court which this Court duly endorses, the rejection of the bids of the petitioner in respect to all the three markets, which is the subject matter of the three writ Page No.# 9/10

petitions, appears to be not in consonance with law, more particularly, when the writ petitioner in respect to all the three markets had offered a much higher rate than that of the private respondents. The reasons so assigned by the respondents cannot be said to be reasonable, lawful and fair.

9. Considering the above, the three writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

(i). The approval given by the CHD, Market & Fairs Department, Bodoland Territorial Council dated 15.07.2025 in favour of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.4752/2025 pertaining to the Doomni Daily Weekly Market is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the settlement order passed pursuant to the approval in favour of the respondent No.6 in respect to the Doomni Daily Weekly Market stands set aside and quashed.

(ii). The approval so granted by the Block Development Officer Tihu Barama Development Block, thereby settling the Barimakha Open Market in favour of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.4753/2025 is set aside and quashed. The consequential settlement order so passed in respect to the Barimakha Open Market in favour of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.4753/2025 is also set aside and quashed

(iii). The approval dated 15.07.2025 given by the CHD, Market & Fairs Department, Bodoland Territorial Council thereby settling the Barbari Bi-weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.4804/2025 is set aside and quashed. The consequential settlement order on the basis of the approval dated 15.07.2025 in respect to the Barbari Bi-weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.6 is also set aside and quashed.

(iv). The respondents in the BTC are directed to take effective steps, if so Page No.# 10/10

advised for settlement of these markets in accordance with law.

(v). It shall be open to the private respondents to approach the concerned BTC authorities for refund of the offered rates. The BTC shall duly consider the same in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant