WP(C)/1800/2025 of SUREN SAIKIA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 14 May 2026

ORDER

15.05.2026 Heard Mr. L. Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3—5, Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. The issue involved in the writ petition is the validity and legality of the letter of recommendation dated 19.03.2025, issued by the Chairperson of the Dhing Municipal Board, to settle the bill in question with respondent No.6. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent Nos.3—5 has filed an affidavit-in- opposition on 12.05.2026 stating as under:- “1. That, the deponent is presently the Chairperson of Dhing Municipal Board, Dhing in the district of (Nagaon) Assam and has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in the above noted case. The deponent is fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and has been duly instructed and authorized by Respondent Nos. 5 to swear this affidavit. Therefore, the deponent is competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That, the deponent states that all the statements made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied by the deponent, save and except those, if any, specifically admitted herein by the deponent.

3. That, the Dhing Municipal Board (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Board') issued an NIT on 24.01.25 calling for sealed tenders for settlement of Letteri Beel (East & West Part) and Tolibar Beel for the Year 2025-26 to 2027-2028 vide Tender and also stated the terms and conditions of the Tender Process in the said NIT. The official bid value mentioned in the NIT was Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only.

4. That, Your deponent states that the Respondent no.5-Dhing Municipal Board has issued the Letter of Recommendation for Settlement of Tolibor Beel for the period 2025- 26 to 2027-28 in favour of the respondent no.6 and accordingly issued letter of Recommendation to the Respondent no. 6 vide order no. DMB.71/BEEL/2018-19/725 dated 19.03.2025,

5. That, being aggrieved with the aforesaid recommendation for settlement of the Beel, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition for setting aside and quashing the Letter of Recommendation for Settlement of Tolibor Beel for the period 2025-26 to 2027-28 in favour of respondent no.6 and the same is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Court.

6. That, your deponent states that due to changing circumstances and pre-occupation in other works, the respondent no.6 has decided not to run the aforesaid Beel settled in his favour vide letter of recommendation dated 19.03.2025. Accordingly, the respondent no. 6 wrote letter to your deponent and requested to release the amount deposited against the settlement.

7. That, pursuant to the request for withdrawal of recommendation by the respondent no.6 and the petitioner also being interested for settlement of the Tolibor Beel at his offered bid, the Board has taken decision for Settlement of Tolibor Beel for the period 2025-26 to 2027-28 in favour of the petitioner at his bid value of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only.” It is evident that the respondents have taken a decision for settling the bill in question with the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in view of the aforesaid stand of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the instant writ petition thereof. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed in terms of the aforesaid endorsement made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 12.05.2026. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Kaushik Goswami JUDGE