Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4325/2026 of SRI JABESWAR BORO Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 27 August 2026
GAHC010171402026 2026:GAU-AS:12465 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4325/2026 SRI JABESWAR BORO S/O. LATE LOGAN BORO, R/O. VILLAGE DEURIGAON, P.O. GERUA BAZAR, DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784514 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010171402026
2026:GAU-AS:12465
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4325/2026
SRI JABESWAR BORO
S/O. LATE LOGAN BORO, R/O. VILLAGE DEURIGAON, P.O. GERUA BAZAR, DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784514
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06.
2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM-783370.
3:THE COUNCIL HEAD OF DEPARTMENT (CHD)
MARKET AND FAIRS DEPARTMENT
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN -783370.
4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BECHIMARI
DEV. BLOCK
BECHIMARI
DISTRICT - UDALGURI
ASSAM. PIN -784514
5:SRI DIMASHA BASUMATARY
C/O ROMATH BASUMATARY
R/O- MAHALIAPARA
P.O- GERUA BAZAR
DISTRICT - UDALGURI
ASSAM. PIN -78451
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Bora, Standing Counsel Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 28.08.2026
Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. B. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the BTC and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department.
2. This Court has also taken note of the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the said affidavit of service, this Court is of the opinion that the service can be deemed to be complete qua the respondent No. 5.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the illegal and arbitrary actions on the part of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in settling the Lalpul Open Weekly Market in favour of the respondent No. 5 though admittedly the respondent No. 5 was the second highest bidder.
4. The materials on record show that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 27.05.2026. In the said Notice Inviting Tender, various markets were put to sale including the Lalpul Open Weekly Market under the Bechimari Development Block, Udalguri.
5. It is very pertinent to take note of Clause 13 of the Notice Inviting Tender and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “13. The competent authority shall make settlement with the highest bidder if all the necessary documents and Government revenue are found in order. In case settlement is not made with the highest bidder, the competent authority shall record reasons in writing for their decisions. The competent authority before awarding the settlement shall make necessary enquiry keeping in mind genuineness, eligibility and seriousness of the parties. The competent authority shall also keep in mind the public interest as well as to the absurdity of the rates offered by the Intending Tenderers. The tender documents itself provide the rate which shall be charged from petty vendors by the successful bidders and no one shall charge a single penny more than the prescribed rate causing burden to the poor vendors who come to sell their crops and other items at the market.”
6. From a perusal of the above quoted Clause, it would be seen that the Competent Authority shall make settlement with the highest bidder if all the necessary documents and Government revenue are found to be in order. It is further mentioned that if the settlement is not made in favour of the highest bidder, the Competent Authority has to record reasons in writing for such decisions.
7. This Court duly takes note of that the petitioner was the highest competent bidder and the respondent No. 5 was the second highest competent bidder. However, the respondent No. 3 had issued a communication to the respondent No. 4 dated 27.07.2026 thereby directing the respondent No. 4 to enter into a Lease Agreement and execute a Deed of Agreement with the respondent No. 5. This communication dated 27.07.2026 is the subject matter of challenge.
8. When the writ petition was listed before this Court on 14.08.2026, this Court, while issuing notice passed certain interim directions. The interim direction so passed was that the impugned communication dated 27.07.2026 issued by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 4 shall remain stayed.
9. Today, when the matter has been taken up, Ms. B. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel for the BTC has placed before this Court an instruction issued by the respondent No. 3 to the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the BTC which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.
10. From a perusal of the said communication, it is seen that the reason why the respondent No. 5 has been chosen over the petitioner is because the Market Settlement Committee had recommended so.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the said reason so assigned would not meet the requirements in terms with Clause 13 of the Notice Inviting Tender which is reproduced hereinabove. Apart from that, the action on the part of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to grant the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 5 is also illegal and arbitrary, for which the same is required to be interfered with.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned communication dated 27.07.2026 issued by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 4 is set aside and quashed.
(ii) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed afresh to consider the comparative statements in respect to the tender pertaining to Lalpul Open Weekly Market and then take appropriate steps for settlement in accordance with law and the tender conditions.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant