Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010254922025 2025:GAU- AS:17126-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/396/2025 DHRUBA BORO S/O. HONGLA BORO,R/O. VILLAGE - DONGPAR, P.O. BARIMAKHA,INDIAG. SARMKAMRUP M REGD.D. NO.- KAM-113517PNMENT3P.S. BARBARI. DISTRICT - BAKSA, ASSAM,PIN-781333. VERSUS 1: PARESH BRAHMA AND 5 ORS S/O. KAMALA BRAHMA.R/O. VILLAGE - AMBARI, P.O. P.S.MUSHALPUR, DISTRICT - BAKSA, ASSAM,PIN -781372. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECYD. PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE RINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 783370 4:THE MARKET SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE BTC REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 783370 5:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER BAKSA DIST. BTC ASSAM 781372 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TIHU BARAMA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BARAMA BAKSA ASSAM 78132 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate. : Ms. F. Intaz, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Borah, Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department. : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council, assisted by Ms. R. Das, Advocate. Page No.# 2/4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 11.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned Advocate for the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). A public tender process was initiated for the annual settlement of various local markets/ghats/ parking lots/ferries and cattle ponds in Baksa District in the State of Assam for the financial year 2025-26. The tender was issued by the Block Development Officer of the concerned Block under BTC. The issue here revolves around the tender for Barimakha Open Market, where the reserved bid amount was fixed at Rs.1,64,096/-. The appellant and 4(four) others, including the respondent No.1, had participated in the tender, where the respondent No.1 had offered the highest price of Rs.4,00,315/- and the appellant had offered the lowest price of Rs.1,70,060/- in the tender. Despite the respondent No.1 being the highest tenderer, the contract was given to the appellant on the ground that the tender papers of the respondent No.1 suffered from a technical breach of the terms of the tender paper, namely, that the Demand Draft submitted by him, though was endorsed to the correct payee, but the payer was not the respondent No.1 but somebody by the name of Bichitra Brahma. The respondent No.1 challenged the afore-noted decision of the appellant having been given the contract despite being the lowest Page No.# 3/4 tenderer, which challenge was sustained by this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4752/2025 allowed the petition, following an earlier judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) No.7889/2022 (Karuna Deury -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.). It was held that the Demand Draft paid by the respondent No.1 was valid, notwithstanding the name discrepancy as it was in favour of the authority and that such deposit of the Demand Draft did not cause any prejudice. Thus, the settlement in favour of the appellant was quashed and the BTC was directed to reconsider and settle the market afresh in accordance with law. The appellant was given the liberty to seek refund of his bid deposit from the BTC. Mr. Sheikh, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the deposit of a proper Demand Draft was an essential condition for the tender, which essentiality was considered by the authorities and, therefore, it was not appropriate for the learned Single Judge to have said, notwithstanding a precedent of this Court, that it did not cause any prejudice. It has further been submitted by Mr. Sheikh that all other tenderers in between the respondent No.1 and the appellant did not qualify technically and, therefore, only he and the respondent No.1 were in the fray. In that case, the learned Single Judge ought not to have substituted his opinion about the essentiality of the tender requirement, which was otherwise considered by the tendering authority. There could be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant but considering the entire set of facts, including the respondent No.1 having offered his tender at a very high price Page No.# 4/4 compared to that offered by the appellant, and the fact that after the decision of the learned Single Judge, a decision has been taken by the BTC to put the work to retender, which according to Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate for the BTC, is in the process, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant