Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010277802023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7146/2023 NIKUNJA DUTTA PROPRIETOR OF M/S B.D. CONSTRUCTION, R/O- NIZ MANKATA, MANKATA T.E. 1/159 RRA (A), DIBRUGARH, P.O. C.R. BUILDING, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781003. 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER IMPLEMENTATION MINOR AND MICRO IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY-3. 5:SRI MRIDUL SONOWAL Page No.# 2/6 RESIDENT OF NIRMALI GAON PO NIRMALI GAON DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PIN-786003 6:SRI BISWAJIT GOGOI RESIDENT OF BORPATHAR KUMAR GAON PO- KUMAR GAON PIN-786008 7:SRI JIBON GOGOI RESIDENT OF CHIRING CHAPORI PO-CHIRING CHAPORI DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 8:SRI KALYAN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF BAKHTULI KHOWANG DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PO-KHOWANG PO-KHOWANG PIN-785675 9:SRI HEMANTA SAIKIA RESIDENT OF ATHABARI KHOWANG DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PO-KHOWANG PO-KHOWANG PIN-785675 10:SRI BULESWAR KACHARI RESIDENT OF NIRMALI GAON PO-NIRMALI GAON DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PIN-786003 11:SRI PRANJIT HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF TENGAKHAT NIZ BHEKULAJAN PO-NIZ BHEKULAJAN DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH PIN-78610 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N TALUKDAR, MS N RABHA Page No.# 3/6 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 10.02.2025 Heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of his bid submitted in pursuance to an E-Tender notice dated 05.10.2023 for construction of MDTW Schemes under RIDF-XXIX(NABARD) for the year 2023- 2024 against 5 (five) number of packages under the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam. The total estimated amount of the work is Rs.553.77604 Lakh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his bid on 27.10.2023 in respect of all the 5 (Five) packages along with all required documents. During the technical evaluation, the bids of the petitioner in respect of 5 (Five) packages had been rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee on the ground that the petitioner is a Mouzadar appointed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886. It is submitted that during the course of the proceedings, on instructions received by the Standing Counsel and placed before the Court, petitioner came to be aware that the petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a Mouzadar of Mancotta Khanikar Mouza under Dibrugarh West Revenue Circle. Since this information was not provided in the bids submitted, Page No.# 4/6 the department treated this to be suppression of facts from the department by the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was not found to be technically viable. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court while issuing notice, however, declined to issue any interim orders. The matter was listed thereafter on several dates. Today when the matter is called up, the learned Standing Counsel submits before the Court that the Tender had already been awarded to the short listed Tenderer, the work was also completed. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the original prayers made in the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents and interfering with the orders passed rejecting the technical bids of the writ petitioner in view of the circumstances placed before the Court will no longer be available to the writ petitioner. However, he submits that the larger question of whether the Mouzadar is prohibited from participating any Tender floated by the State is a question which requires interpretation by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also having noticed the prayers made in the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner’s grievance before this Court was his rejection of his bids at the technical evaluation in undertaken by the respondent department of the ensuing bid process. Although an interim protection was prayed for before this Court, no such protection was granted and consequently, the contract came to be awarded to the short listed bidder and subsequently the work was also executed by the said contractor. As per submissions of the Standing Counsel, the work came to be executed and as on date no bidding process in respect of which the present writ petition has been filed is pending. Although, the short listed bidders are arrayed as a party, none represents Page No.# 5/6 the same. Considering the submissions made and the pleadings before the Court, it is seen that as on date even assuming the Court renders a finding in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the question placed before the Court as to whether Mouzadar appointed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 can participate in Tenders or Contracts initiated by the State or its agencies, no effective directions can be issued in the present writ petition save and except giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum for due compensation if so advised. This Court is of the view that at present since the contract is no longer subsisting and has been stated to have been duly executed by the short listed tenderer, the question urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court for a decision, appears to the Court in its opinion to be the purely academic nature. It is well settled that writ Courts will not enter into questions which are of purely academic interest or are academic in nature. However, having said that this question urged before the Court as to whether a Mouzadar appointed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 can participate in tenders or contracts initiated by the State is left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings without expressing any opinion. Referring to a copy of the instructions placed before the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the department had referred this question for the views of the Judicial Department, Government of Assam and which on the date of the issue of the instructions was kept pending. He therefore submits that the direction be issued to the department to render its opinion in the matter. Page No.# 6/6 Considering the discussions above, this Court of the view that since the Court has already held that this question raised before the Court need not be gone into in view of the same being academic, the Department of Irrigation shall serve a copy of such opinion as may have been passed by the Judicial Department on the question referred to by the Irrigation Department. If any such opinion has been rendered and a decision to that effect has been issued by the Irrigation Department, copy thereof be served on the petitioner. In view of the above discussion the writ petition stands closed without any further direction. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant