WP(C)/977/2024 of GYAN GOURAV MIN PALAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 7 June 2026

GAHC010032032024

2026:GAU-AS:8029

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/977/2024 GYAN GOURAV MIN PALAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE ASSAM CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2007 BEARING REGISTRATION NO. DJ-551 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NA NADI, PO NA NADI, PS GOGAMUKH, DIST DHEMAJI, ASSAM, 787034, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI ARABINDA DAS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI GHANA DAS, RESIDENT NA NADI, PO NA NADI, PS GOGAMUKH, DIST DHEMAJI, ASSAM 787034 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI 781036 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI 781036 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI ASSAM 787057 5:SRI NABA KUMAR DAS @ DEBA DAS

S/O HAREN DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHEBELI KOIBARTA GAON PO NA-NADI PS GOGAMUKH DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 787034 6:SRI MUNINDRA DAS S/O GAGESWAR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORDOLONI PO BORDOLONI PS GOGAMUKH DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 78703

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. N Borah Advocates for the respondent(s) :Mr. TJ Mahanta, Senior Advocate Ms. P Bhattacharjee For respondent No.5 Mr. P Sarmah Standing Counsel, AFDC

Date on which Judgment is reserved :NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment :08.06.2026

Whether the Pronouncement is of the :NA Operative Part of the Judgment

Whether the Full Judgment has been :Yes Pronounced

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Mr. P Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the AFDC.

2. The petitioner herein who had submitted its bid pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14.03.2022, being aggrieved by the settlement granted to the respondent No.5, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. The basic contention on which the petitioner’s case hinges upon is that the Respondent No.5 is a shareholder of Kumatia Group Fishery Cooperative Society and the said Society is a defaulter. Under such circumstances, the petitioner being a share holder of the said Cooperative Society could not have been permitted to participate in terms with Clause 2.10 of the Tender Conditions. The said contention of the petitioner is based upon the allegation that Sri Naba Kumar Das who had been granted the settlement is also known as Deba Das and the said Deba Das is a share holder of the said Kumatia Group Fishery Cooperative Society Limited.

4. This Court duly takes note of that the settlement was made in favour of the Respondent No.5, vide the order dated 09.06.2022.

5. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 13.02.2024, alleging, inter alia, that Sri Naba Kumar Das and Sri Deba Das are one and the same person, and as such, there is violation of Clause 2.10 of the Tender Conditions to grant the contract in favour of Sri Naba Kumar Das i.e. the

Respondent No.5.

6. It is very pertinent at this stage to observe that during the period from 09.06.2022 till 12.02.2024, when the petitioner did not approach this Court; a writ petition was filed by a person namely Sri Ghana Das, who was the President of the Kumatia Group Fishery Cooperative Society Limited. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that it is the allegation of the writ petitioner in the present proceeding that Sri Naba Kumar Das and Sri Deba Das are one and the same person and the said Sri Deba Das was the share holder of Kumatia Group Fishery Cooperative Society Limited.

7. The writ petition which was filed by the said Ghana Das, was registered as the WP(C)No.7442/2022. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed Judgment & Order dated 26.09.2023 dismissed the said writ petition. There were two grounds upon which the writ petition was dismissed. First, that the said Sri Ghana Das was not a bidder to the said Tender Notice dated 14.03.2022. The second reason, which assumes prominence, for the purpose of the present proceedings is that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court categorically observed that as to whether Naba Kumar Das was also Deba Das is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding. It is only subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached this Court raising the same issue.

8. The question, therefore, arises in the instant proceedings is that in respect to the same issue which was raised by Sri Ghana Das should this Court permit the petitioner raise the same issue merely because of the fact that some more better particulars have been placed.

9. This Court also has taken note of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the

Respondent No.5, wherein various documents have also been enclosed, such as a Certificate of Birth issued on 12.03.2007 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Directorate of Health Services, Government of Assam; an Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, for the purpose of appearing in the High School Leaving Certificate, (Compartmental) Examination, 1997; an Aadhaar Card dated 24.01.2020, as well as an extract of the Voters’ List published in respect of Village Part 2, Bhebeli Koibarta, 113 Dhemaji (Scheduled Tribe) LAC to repel the contention of impersonation and establish the existence of a person, namely Naba Kumar Das, Son of Haren Das, separate from Deba Das.

10. This Court having taken note of the judgment passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 26.09.2023, and this very aspect having also been upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 05.04.2024 in WA No.20/2024, it is the opinion of this Court that judicial discipline demands that this Court should not further entertain the instant proceedings.

11. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, dismisses the instant writ petition on the ground that it is not being entertained.

12. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.

13. The period of pendency of the instant writ petition i.e. from 13.02.2024 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant