Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010206542023 2025:GAU-AS:9715 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5462/2023 PRADIP DAS REPRESENTING EDUCATED UNEMPLOYED SC YOUTH SELF HELP GROUP, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1949 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGED ABOUT 40, S/O LATE KAMAL DAS, R/O BOKAKHAT TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- BOKAKHAT, DIST-GOLAGHAT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWHATI-781006 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT P.O. P.S. AND DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM 4:BORPAK MIN SILPA S S LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI PRADIP DAS S/O NAKURAM DAS R/O VILL- BORPAK P.O.-NUMALIGARH P.S.- KAMAR GAON DIST-GOLAGHA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Borthakur Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. U Das, Govt. Advocate Mr. DJ Medhi B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 28.07.2025 Heard Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U Das, the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. DJ Medhi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his bid vide the order dated 28.08.2023. It is relevant to take note of that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on various grounds as enumerated in Clause I to VII of the order dated 28.08.2023. One of the grounds which has been mentioned is that the Neighbourhood Certificate was issued by the Gram Pradhan instead of the concerned Revenue Circle Officer. It is pertinent to take note of that vide the Notification dated 18.01.2018 which was published in the Assam Gazette on 04.04.2018, it has been categorically mentioned that the Neighbourhood Page No.# 3/3 Certificate has to be issued by the concerned Revenue Circle Officer. 3. Without going into the other grounds on which the petitioner’s bid was rejected, on this ground alone it is seen that the Neighbourhood Certificate which is a mandatory condition having not been issued by the competent authority, the said Neighbourhood Certificate which was submitted by the petitioner Society was not as per law. 4. Considering the above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order dated 28.08.2023, by which, the petitioner’s bid was rejected. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant