Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010145752026 2026:GAU-AS:10208 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3797/2026 ABDUS SAMAD S/O LT. AFJAL HUSSAIN WARD NO. 2, TOWN- ABHAYAPURI P.S- ABHAYAPURI, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-0 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr. P Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s) : Ms. MD Borah Standing Counsel, IWT Department. Page No.# 2/6 Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 24.07.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : No. Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. P Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. MD Borah, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner's bid to be technically non-responsive. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘the NIT’) was issued on 31.12.2025 by the respondent No.3 for settlement of various ferry services for the period from 2026-2029. The ferry service in the present proceedings is the Bogoribari-Patakata ferry service, which Page No.# 3/6 admittedly falls within the district of Dhubri. The said NIT contained various terms and conditions as has been mentioned in the Detail Terms and Conditions of NIT for Leasing Out of I.W.T. Ferry Services for the Remaining Period of 2026-2029. Clause 7 of the Detail Terms and Conditions of NIT being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “7. The tenderer have to submit Certificate in support of periodic patta land in his own name within the District or the Subdivision of value not less than the bid / tender money from the Deputy Commissioner /Additional Deputy Commissioner / Sadar Sub divisional Officer of the District or Sub divisional Officer (Civil) of the Subdivision concerned and Circle Officer on behalf of Deputy Commissioner.” 4. From a perusal of the above-quoted provisions, it is seen that the tenderer has to produce a Certificate in support of a periodic patta land in his own name within the district or the Subdivision of value not less than the bid /tender money from the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner or the Sadar Sub Divisional Officer of the district or the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of the Sub Division concerned and the Circle Officer on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The petitioner duly submitted the tender application on 20.01.2026 for the Bogoribari-Patakata ferry service. In the tender application, what are the documents which are required to be submitted has been mentioned. Documents required to be submitted in respect to the land has been categorically mentioned at Sl.No.4, Page No.# 4/6 which includes: (i). Periodic Patta /Jamabandi; (ii). Valuation Certificate issued from the Deputy Commissioner/ ADC /SDO(S)/ SDO(C) and Circle Officer on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner. (iii). N.O.C of the Co-Pattadar in the form of an affidavit duly signed by the Notary. (iv). Non Encumbrance Certificate issued from the Sub-Register Office. (v). Land Revenue Clearance Certificate. 6. The petitioner though submitted his tender for a ferry service, which falls within the district of Dhubri, but admittedly submitted land documents as required under Clause 7 of the Detail NIT, as well as the tender application which pertains to the District of Bongaigaon. This aspect can be seen from Page 20 and Page 21 of the writ petition. 7. The records further reveal that on 19.06.2026, a meeting was held in the Chamber of the Managing Director, AIWCL Assam, wherein the evaluation of the tenders of the various ferry services were taken into consideration. Insofar as the ferry service being, Bogoribari- Patakata ferry service is concerned, it is seen that there were 10 Page No.# 5/6 bidders. The petitioner’s bid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the proper land documents. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved, has approached this Court. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. MD Borah, the learned Standing Counsel of the I.W.T. 9. The question arises as to whether in the present case this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A perusal of the minutes dated 19.06.2026, which has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-IV would show that in so far as the ferry service being Bogoribari-Patakata ferry service, the petitioner's bid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the proper land documents. 10. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of Clause 7 of the Detail Terms and Conditions of NIT, which has been quoted hereinabove, it would show that the tenderer has to submit a certificate in support of the periodic patta land in his own name, which has to be within the district wherein the ferry service is located. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the ferry service being Bogoribari-Patakata ferry service, is situated within the district of Page No.# 6/6 Dhubri. 11. Under such circumstances, the documents which have been submitted, i.e. the Jamabandi as well as the Certificates so issued by Circle Officer, Srijangram Revenue Circle is in the district of Bongaigaon. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though submitted that confining the land documents only to the district or the Sub Division wherein the ferry service is located, violates the rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is the opinion of this Court that for that purpose, the petitioner instead of submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the tender, ought to have challenged the term of the tender, which had not been done. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for issuance of notice, for which, the petition stands dismissed. 14. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant