Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010186012024 2025:GAU-AS:12214 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4644/2024 SANJAY KR HALDAR S/O- BAREN CH. HALDAR, VILL- DARCHAWKA, P.S.- GAURIPUR, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783331. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER DHUBRI CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI (REVENUE FISHERY SECTION) P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD DHUBRI P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER Page No.# 2/5 DHUBRI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHUBRI P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 5:SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C) BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.- GAURIPUR DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783331. 7:BIJOY BISWAS S/O- SHRI SUBHASH BISWAS R/O- VILL- GAURIPUR WARD NO. 5 DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783331 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. AZ Ahmed Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. M Chetia For respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 Ms. N Bora Page No.# 3/5 For respondent No.3 Mr. P S Bhattacharyya For respondent No.4 Date of hearing & judgment :08.09.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. AZ Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M Chetia, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, Ms. N Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr.PS Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.7 on call. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for setting aside and quashing the impugned settlement order dated 23.04.2024 passed in favour of the private respondent as well as further seeking a direction that the respondent authorities should make the settlement in favour of the petitioner for a period of 5(five) years in terms with the earlier NIT dated 27.09.2023. 3. It is relevant to take note of that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.09.2023, the petitioner had participated in the said Page No.# 4/5 tender process. However, the petitioner was the third highest bidder. But the respondent authorities took a decision that instead of granting the settlement in favour of any person they would go for a re-tender. 4. The record further reveals that pursuant thereto, a re-tender notice was issued in the month of February, 2024. The petitioner very well knew about the re-tender notice, but did not participate. Subsequent thereto, in the month of July 2024, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the re-tender notice, that too, when the private respondent had already been granted the settlement. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 18.07.2024 in WP(C)No.2328/2024. However, this Court had granted the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the settlement made in favour of the private respondents, if so advised. 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The ground so taken by the petitioner is that the settlement has been made in favour of the private respondent at a rate lower than what the petitioner had quoted in the earlier notice inviting tender process initiated on the basis of the NIT dated 27.09.2023. In the opinion of this Court when the petitioner had not participated in the said re-tender process, the question of challenging the rate at which the respondent No.6 had been issued the settlement, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise. Page No.# 5/5 6. Accordingly this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant