WA/286/2026 of ABDUS SAMAD Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. on 11 August 2026

GAHC010161232026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/286/2026 ABDUS SAMAD S/O LT. AFJAL HUSSAIN, WARD NO. 2, TOWN ABHAYAPURI, P.S ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM, ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-07 For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M.D. Borah, SC, Transport –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 12.08.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport

Department. The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 24.07.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 3797/2026, whereby the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner for interference with his technical disqualification by the Departmental Tender Committee was rejected. The Inland Water Transport Department, Assam, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for settlement of various ferry services. The appellant had participated in the tender process for Bogoribari Patakata Ferry Service, located in Dhubri District. For the afore-noted ferry service, apart from the appellant, there were nine other participants. The Departmental Tender Committee rejected the bid of the appellant on the ground that he had failed to submit proper land documents pertaining to land in Dhubri District and had, instead, submitted documents of land in Bongaigaon district. Such rejection of his tender was challenged by the appellant before a learned Single Judge vide WP(C) No. 3797/2026, referred to above, which too was rejected on the ground that the land documents submitted by the appellant was not in accordance with Clause 7 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). We find that the learned Single Judge has quoted Clause 7 of the NIT, which is self-explanatory, and it specifies that the tenderer will have to submit certificate in support of periodic patta land in his own name within the District or the Sub-Division of value not less than the bid/tender money from the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/Sadar Sub-Divisional Officer of the District or Sub-Divisional

Officer (Civil) of the Sub-Division concerned and Circle Officer on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner. Seen thus, we find no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge with respect of the rights of the appellant under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bhuyan, learned senior Advocate for the appellant has raised an argument that an erroneous and unduly restrictive interpretation of Clause 7 of the NIT has been made by the learned Single Judge by reading it into a requirement, which has not been clearly stipulated in the NIT. The sum and substance of the argument of Mr. Bhuyan is that Clause 7 of the tender documents only requires a certificate of periodic patta land of adequate value in the name of the tenderer. The only object of such certificate would be to establish the financial capacity of the tenderer. Mr. Bhuyan therefore submits that the rejection of the bid of the appellant on the ground that the land documents submitted by the appellant is not for any land in Dhubri district, reflects a hyper-technical approach of the Departmental Tender Committee as also of the learned Single Judge. We do not agree to such submissions made on behalf of the appellant for the reason of the clear and unambiguous stipulation made in Clause 7 of the tender documents, requiring a tenderer to submit certificate showing “periodic patta land in his own name within the District”. For the afore-noted reasons we find no merits in this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE Comparing Assistant