GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 20:

1. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R.R. Kakati, learned Advocate for the appellants; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4; Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned Advocate for respondent No.5.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6324/2025, whereby the settlement of the Bazar in question with respondent No.5 has not been interfered with.

3. A Tender Notice was issued on 07.06.2025 by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad for settlement of various markets under the Parishad for a period of 1(one) year, i.e. from 2025 to 2026 with effect from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026. The tender in question is with respect to Balisatra Half Weekly Market, wherein the Government value of the said market was declared to be around Rs.83 Lakhs. Clause 12 of the Tender Notice indicated that in respect of tender for all Bazars/Hats, the tender offering highest value at the rate of the average of settlement value of previous 3(three) years along with an increase within the cap of 10% will be accepted for consideration. Later, an addendum was brought about indicating in detail the average value of all the Ghats/Hats, which were put to tender along with a figure which indicated the 10% increase on such average value.

4. The appellants did not participate in the bid despite they being seasoned bidders, who had participated in such bids earlier and were also with all preparedness, only for the reason that they understood the terms of the tender differently, which, according to the appellants, was the only logical conclusion of the wordings used in the Tender Papers. Perhaps the appellants understood that the minimum value of the tender would be the average of the last 3(three) years bid value and the range within which bids have to be offered would be the average of the last 3(three) years settlement with only a ten percent hike cap and not beyond. The average of the last 3(three) years settlement was more than a Crore of rupees. This assessment of the minimum price prevented the appellants from participating in the bid. When the bid was settled in favour of the respondent No.5 at a much lower price, which was only slightly higher than the Government price of the Hat, the appellants chose to question the tender process by alleging that the terms of the tender were confusing, vague and thus led to lesser participation and consequently there was no level playing field.

Mr. Choudhury contends that this confusing Clause in the Tender Document, in a way, breached the essentials of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xzWuwTaAQvpAN7f1VES9K6NVQLAI8Fw8snj%2FFlPfatLU&caseno=WA/378/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010257492025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.