Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010261092025 2025:GAU-AS:15982 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6665/2025 MONKICHAND HOJAI S/O.- MONORANJAN HOJAI, R/O.- VILLAGE- RANGAPUR, P.O AND P.S - HARANGAJAO, DISTRICT- DIMA-HASAO, ASSAM, PIN- 788818. VERSUS THE NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL (N.C.HILLS) AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HAFLONG, DISTRICT- DIMA-HASAO, ASSAM- 788819. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (N) NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIMA-HASAO HAFLONG DISTRICT- DIMA-HASAO ASSAM- 788819. 3:THE SECRETARY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE N.C HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG DISTRICT- DIMA-HASAO ASSAM- 788819. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES N.C HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL HAFLONG DISTRICT- DIMA-HASAO ASSAM- 788819 Page No.# 2/6 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate Mr. J. Lotha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Thousen, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Lotha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition challenging the Short Tender Notice dated 19.11.2025 whereby the Secretary, Executive Committee, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council had issued a Notice Inviting Tender for settlement of the Dittockcherra Vehicle Gate for the period from 01.12.2025 to 31.12.2025 at the official value of Rs. 7,30,000/-. 3. Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the tender amount so calculated is to be calculated on the basis of the assessment report for the period of 30 (thirty) days i.e. w.e.f. 16.10.2025 to 14.11.2025. Page No.# 3/6 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Respondent Authorities for reasons best known have not granted the contract to the petitioner for the remaining period from 01.12.2025 to 31.12.2025 in spite of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 2320/2025. 5. Mr. B.D. Das, the learner Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the retender notice dated 22.04.2025 was set aside by this Court and liberty was granted to the respondents to settle the remaining period up till 31.12.2025 to the eligible bidders in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that instead of doing so, the Respondent Authorities have gone for a Short Tender Notice for the period from 01.12.2025 to 31.12.2025, which is nothing, but a colourable exercise of power. 6. Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in pursuance to the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 2320/2025, the Respondent Authorities have tried to settle the remaining period with the highest bidder namely Sri Siddhartha Hojai who had quoted Rs. 2,87,50,200/- for the entire period from 12.04.2025 to 31.12.2025. However, the said bidder did not accept and it is under such circumstances, a decision was taken for retendering. The learned Standing Counsel further Page No.# 4/6 submitted that liberty was given by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 24.10.2025 to grant the settlement for the remaining period up till 31.12.2025 to the eligible bidders in accordance with law and accordingly, it was duly offered to the highest bidder, but as the highest bidder refused, the Respondent Authorities therefore for public interest had issued the Short Tender Notice. In addition to that, the learned Standing Counsel further submitted that for the period from 16.10.2025 to 14.11.2025, the amount which was calculated on the basis of the assessment report was Rs. 9,14,880/-. 7. This Court duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions. 8. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide the judgment and order dated 24.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 2320/2025 disposed of the writ petition with the following observations which is at paragraph No. 13 of the said judgment and order which is reproduced herein under: “13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The cancellation of the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.03.2025 vide a cancellation order dated 19.04.2025 is set aside and quashed. Page No.# 5/6 (ii) The retender notice so issued on 22.04.2025 is further set aside and quashed. (iii) The Respondents are given the liberty to grant the settlement for the remaining period up till 31.12.2025 to the eligible bidders in accordance with law. (iv) Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C. Hills submitted that the same would be done within a period of 2 (two) weeks.” 9. From a perusal of the above quoted portion, it would be seen that this Court had not only set aside the cancellation of the tender process, but also the retender notice dated 22.04.2025. However, this Court granted liberty to the respondents to grant the settlement for the remaining period up till 31.12.2025 to the eligible bidders in accordance with law. 10. Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents duly submitted that the respondent Council had offered it to the highest bidder but as the highest bidder declined, a Short Tender Notice has been issued in public interest. 11. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the issuance of the Short Tender Notice thereby trying to settle for the period from 01.12.2025 to 31.12.2025 by a tender process cannot be questioned in the present facts of the case. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant Page No.# 6/6 writ petition, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant