Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 8 September, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010186012024
2025:GAU-AS:12214
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4644/2024
SANJAY KR HALDAR
S/O- BAREN CH. HALDAR,
VILL- DARCHAWKA,
P.S.- GAURIPUR,
DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM,
PIN- 783331.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI (REVENUE FISHERY SECTION)
P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILA PARISHAD
DHUBRI
P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Page No.# 2/5
DHUBRI MUNICIPAL BOARD
DHUBRI
P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
5:SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C)
BILASIPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BILASIPARA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND P.S.- GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331.
7:BIJOY BISWAS
S/O- SHRI SUBHASH BISWAS
R/O- VILL- GAURIPUR WARD NO. 5
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. AZ Ahmed
Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. M Chetia
Ms. N Bora
Page No.# 3/5
For respondent No.3
Mr. P S Bhattacharyya
For respondent No.4
Date of hearing & judgment :08.09.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. AZ Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. Mr. M Chetia, the learned counsel who appears on
behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, Ms. N Bora, the learned
counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr.PS
Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the
respondent No.4. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.7 on
call.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in
the nature of mandamus for setting aside and quashing the impugned
settlement order dated 23.04.2024 passed in favour of the private
respondent as well as further seeking a direction that the respondent
authorities should make the settlement in favour of the petitioner for
a period of 5(five) years in terms with the earlier NIT dated
27.09.2023.
3. It is relevant to take note of that pursuant to the Notice Inviting
Tender dated 27.09.2023, the petitioner had participated in the said
Page No.# 4/5
tender process. However, the petitioner was the third highest bidder.
But the respondent authorities took a decision that instead of granting
the settlement in favour of any person they would go for a re-tender.
4. The record further reveals that pursuant thereto, a re-tender
notice was issued in the month of February, 2024. The petitioner very
well knew about the re-tender notice, but did not participate.
Subsequent thereto, in the month of July 2024, the petitioner filed a
writ petition challenging the re-tender notice, that too, when the
private respondent had already been granted the settlement. The said
writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide the order dated
18.07.2024 in WP(C)No.2328/2024. However, this Court had granted
the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the settlement made in
favour of the private respondents, if so advised.
5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition. The ground so taken by the petitioner
is that the settlement has been made in favour of the private
respondent at a rate lower than what the petitioner had quoted in the
earlier notice inviting tender process initiated on the basis of the NIT
dated 27.09.2023. In the opinion of this Court when the petitioner had
not participated in the said re-tender process, the question of
challenging the rate at which the respondent No.6 had been issued
the settlement, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise.
Page No.# 5/5
6. Accordingly this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ
petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
