Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3559/2026 of MOKSED ALI MANDAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 23 July 2026
GAHC010139482026 2026:GAU-AS:10207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3559/2026 MOKSED ALI MANDAL S/O LT. SATTAR ALI MANDAL VILL KAHIBARI PT-I, P.S ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
GAHC010139482026
2026:GAU-AS:10207
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3559/2026
MOKSED ALI MANDAL
S/O LT. SATTAR ALI MANDAL VILL KAHIBARI PT-I, P.S ABHAYAPURI, DIST
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND 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
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. MD Borah Standing Counsel, Transport Deptt.
B E F O R E
HON’BLE 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
24.07.2026
Heard Mr. P Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. MD Borah, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner’s bid to be technically non- responsive on account of the non-compliance to Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘the NIT’).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Clause 10 cannot be treated to be a mandatory condition in view of Clause 22 of the NIT, wherein it is mentioned that the lease is to be granted in respect to running of the Government Vessel and it is only when the Government Vessel is not available, the bidder’s own Vessel is to be used.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the respondents have a discretion to waive, but when a discretion has not been exercised in the manner it should be, the action comes within the ambit of malice in law.
5. On the other hand, Ms. MD Borah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that the term mentioned in Clause 10 is a mandatory term, inasmuch as, in view of the Inland Vessel Act,
2021, on account of the various accidents, it is required that boat registration certificate ought to be placed.
6. In addition to that the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 submitted that in the meantime after the technical evaluation being carried out, the financial evaluation was carried out amongst the technically qualified bidder and one Mohir Uddin has been chosen as the highest valid bidder and as such, the Department is in the process of granting the settlement in favour of the said Mohir Uddin.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the said submission so made, coupled with the communication which was placed before this Court in WP(C)No.3713/2026, the petitioner would be well advised to withdraw the instant writ petition and file a fresh writ petition, without prejudice to the claim so made in the present proceedings.
8. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal.
9. It is observed that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner of the claims made in the present proceedings and the petitioner is granted the liberty to file a fresh writ petition by challenging the selection so made of Mr. Mohir Uddin as the highest valid bidder, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant