Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010153892025 2025:GAU-AS:16221 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3949/2025 SAKINUR HASSAN S/O SRI SOFIQUL ISLAM, VILL- CHAMDHARA, P.O.- DAGAON, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781001 2:THE SECRETARY TELIA BEBEJIA GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. AND P.S.- JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782124 3:SMTI. NAYAN MONI RAVA W/O SRI PRABIN CH. BORA VILL- TELIA BEBEJIA BAMUNGAON P.O. AND P.S.- JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Page No.# 2/4 Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. D. A. Kaiyyum Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Ghosh For the P & RD Department Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 26.11.2025 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. DA Kaiyum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. AK Ghosh, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of P & RD Department, Govt. of Assam. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the settlement of the Erabari Bi-Weekly market for the year 2025-2026 made in favour of the respondent No.3 on the ground that the rate quoted by the respondent No.3 was above 10% of the average of the last three years settlement rate. 3. This Court had duly taken note of that in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 07.06.2025, the Secretary of the Telia Bebejia Gaon Panchayat had issued a notice dated 17.06.2025, wherein it was Page No.# 3/4 mentioned that the 10% increase value would be Rs.1,09,286/-. In the said Notice dated 17.06.2025, the Secretary provided the details of the settled rates of the last three settlement years as well as the average of the last three settlement years. 4. In the backdrop of the above, the case of the petitioner that a perusal of the Notice dated 17.06.2025 would show that the last 3 years settlement rates i.e. for the year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 to be Rs.98,054/-, Rs.99,999/- and Rs.99,999/- respectively, and the average value was Rs.99,350.67p and therefore, 10% increase is Rs.1,09,285.73p. The respondent No. 3 having quoted Rs.1,09,286/-, the bid of the respondent No.3 ought to have been rejected. 5. A perusal of the materials on record show that in the notice dated 17.06.2025, it was categorically mentioned that the 10% increase value is Rs.1,09,286/-. The petitioner did not challenge the said Notice dated 17.06.2025 prior to participation and subsequently after finding that the respondent No.3 had been settled at Rs.1,09,286/- had approached this Court challenging the Notice dated 17.06.2025 as well as the settlement made in favour of the respondent No.3. 6. It is the opinion that the petitioner having not challenged the notice dated 17.06.2025 prior to its participation cannot be allowed to challenge the notice dated 17.06.2025. Furthermore, if the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the notice dated 17.06.2025, the bid Page No.# 4/4 submitted by the respondent No.3 is inconformity with the Notice dated 17.06.2025. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant