Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010170032026 2026:GAU-AS:11609 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4327/2026 M/S SHREE BALAJI MARBLE AND TILES AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI AMIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O- LATE LOON KARAN CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF SANTIPUR, HAIBARGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002 2: SRI AMIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O- LATE LOON KARAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF SANTIPUR HAIBARGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78200 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSA Page No.# 2/20 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A. C. Borborah, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. P. Borah, Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. C. Borborah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondents. PREFACE 2. The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioners challenging the Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.07.2026 bearing Tender Notice No.NSG.1/2021/101 issued by the District Commissioner, Nagaon Page No.# 3/20 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIT’) read with the Corrigendum dated 31.07.2026 bearing No.NSG.1/2021 and more particularly Clause 2(C) (I) of the NIT whereby the eligibility required to submit the Bid was restricted to bidders having at least one year experience of transportation of foodgrains under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”). 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No.1 herein has due experience of transportation of foodgrains with the Food Corporation of India as well as other State entities. The restrictive Clause of only permitting those bidders who have experience of transportation of foodgrains under the Act of 2013 is arbitrary and tailor made and therefore requires to be interfered with. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by creating a differentia between bidders who have experience of transportation of foodgrains under the Food Corporation of India and no experience under the Act of 2013 with bidders who have experience of transportation of foodgrains under the Act of 2013. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT is required to be struck down. In addition to that, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the State has the responsibility in terms with the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (for short, “the Order of Page No.# 4/20 2015”) to distribute the foodgrains by transporting the foodgrains from the FCI Godown to GPSS/WCCS Godown and from GPSS/WCCS Godown to FPS dealer/agent. Under such circumstances, the delegatee of the State, i.e. the District Commissioner has to follow uniform guidelines. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT and compared the same with the tenders issued by the District Commissioners in the district of Bongaigaon and Golaghat wherein similar restrictive clause is not there. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT is required to be interfered with is on the ground that the same is in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. When the writ petition was listed before this Court on 12.08.2026 for motion hearing, this Court had posed a question upon Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate as to whether the impugned NIT in the present form can at all be sustainable in terms with the Order of 2015 in as much as in terms with Clause 2(g), the term "authorized agency" has been defined to mean the concerned Department of the State Government or a Body Corporate or a Company owned by it or a Cooperative, and further at Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015, it is only the State Government who shall lift the foodgrains from the designated depots of the Corporation through its Authorized Agency. Page No.# 5/20 5. This Court also sought for instructions from Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate on the effect of the order passed by this Court on 17.11.2025 in the case of Laipuli Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samity Limited and 15 Others vs. the Union of India and 3 Others, rendered in WP(C) No.1924/2025. 6. Today, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioners have not been able to make out a case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, more particularly taking into account that the Tendering Authority being the best Judge of the requirement can very well stipulate the eligibility Clause, more particularly as in the instant case, the transportation is to be carried out under the Act of 2013. In addition to that, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though Clause 2(g) as well as Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015 specifically stipulates that it is the State Government who shall lift the foodgrains from the designated depots of the Corporation through its authorized agency, but in terms with Clause 7(11), the State Government can devise a suitable mechanism for transportation of the foodgrains from the Corporation godown to the intermediate godown and the door step delivery of the foodgrains to the Fair Price Shops. 7. The learned Senior Government Advocate submitted that if Page No.# 6/20 Clause 2(g) read with Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015 are applied, the Petitioners lose their locus standi to approach this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 9. The two Points for Determination which arise for consideration are herein under:- (i) Whether the Petitioner No.1 who is an independent contractors would have the locus standi to participate in the tender process initiated by the impugned NIT in view of Clause 2(g) read with Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015? (ii) Whether Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned tender is in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution? FIRST POINT FOR DETERMINATION 10. The Act of 2013 was enacted by the Parliament and enforced with effect from 10.09.2013. For the purpose of the present dispute, Section 22 of the Act of 2013 is relevant and the said provision is reproduced herein under:- “22.(1) The Central Government shall, for ensuring the regular supply of foodgrains to persons belonging to eligible households, allocate from the Page No.# 7/20 central pool the required quantity of foodgrains to the State Governments under the Targeted Public Distribution System, as per the entitlements under Section 3 and at prices specified in Schedule I. (2) The Central Government shall allocate foodgrains in accordance with the number of persons belonging to the eligible households identified in each State under section 10. (3). The Central Government shall provide foodgrains in respect of entitlements under sections 4, 5 and section 6, to the State Governments, at prices specified for the persons belonging to eligible households in Schedule I. (4). Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the Central Government shall,— (a) procure foodgrains for the central pool through its own agencies and the State Governments and their agencies; (b) allocate foodgrains to the States; (c) provide for transportation of food grains, as per allocation, to the depots designated by the Central Government in each State; (d) provide assistance to the State Government in meeting the expenditure incurred by it towards intra-State movement, handling of foodgrains and margins paid to fair price shop dealers, in accordance with such norms and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government; and (e) create and maintain required modern and scientific storage facilities at Page No.# 8/20 various levels.” 11. From a perusal of Section 22 of the Act of 2013, it would show that the Central Government is obligated to ensure regular supply of foodgrains by allocating from the central pool the required quantity of foodgrains to the State Government under the Targeted Public Distribution System (for short, 'TPDS') as per the entitlement under Section 3 and at prices specified in Schedule I. Sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Act of 2013 stipulates amongst others that the Central shall provide for transportation of foodgrains as per allocation to the depots designated by the Central Government in each State. This aspect is very important as the transportation of the foodgrains by the Central Government are to be provided at the designated depots, for the State Government to collect and thereupon distribute. The Central Government also would provide assistance to the State Government in meeting the expenditure incurred by the State Government towards the intra-State movement, handling of foodgrains and margins paid to the Fair Price Shop Dealers in accordance with such norms and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 12. In so far as providing assistance to the State Government in meeting the expenses incurred by the State Government towards intra-State movement and the manner how the State Government Page No.# 9/20 should handle the foodgrains, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had made the Order of 2015. In other words, for the State Government to receive the foodgrains allocated by the Central Government as well as the assistance towards meeting the expenditure towards intra-State movement of the foodgrains, the State Government is obligated to abide by the stipulations contained in the Order of 2015. In this regard, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 wherein the obligations of the State Government is stipulated. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “24. (1) The State Government shall be responsible for implementation and monitoring of the schemes of various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme, and their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State. (2) Under the Targeted Public Distribution System, it shall be the duty of the State Government to— (a) take delivery of foodgrains from the designated depots of the Central Government in the State, at the prices specified in Schedule I, organise intra-State allocations for delivery of the allocated foodgrains through their authorised agencies at the door-step of each fair price shop; and (b) ensure actual delivery or supply of the foodgrains to the entitled persons at the prices specified in Schedule I. Page No.# 10/20 (3) For foodgrain requirements in respect of entitlements under sections 4, 5 and section 6, it shall be the responsibility of the State Government to take delivery of foodgrains from the designated depots of the Central Government in the State, at the prices specified in Schedule I for persons belonging to eligible households and ensure actual delivery of entitled benefits, as specified in the aforesaid sections. (4) In case of non-supply of the entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals to entitled persons under Chapter II, the State Government shall be responsible for payment of food security allowance specified in section 8. (5) For efficient operations of the Targeted Public Distribution System, every State Government shall,— (a) create and maintain scientific storage facilities at the State, District and Block levels, being sufficient to accommodate foodgrains required under the Targeted Public Distribution System and other food based welfare schemes; (b) suitably strengthen capacities of their Food and Civil Supplies Corporations and other designated agencies; (c) establish institutionalised licensing arrangements for fair price shops in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended from time to time.” 13. A perusal of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would transpire inter alia that it is the duty of the State Government to take delivery of foodgrains from the designated depots of the Central Government. It further stipulates that after the State Government takes delivery, the Page No.# 11/20 State Government is obligated to organize intra-State allocations for delivery of the allocated foodgrains through their authorized agencies at the doorstep of each Fair Price Shop. 14. In this backdrop, if the Court now takes note of the Order of 2015, it would show that Clause 2(g) of the Order of 2015 defines the term “authorized agency”. The said definition being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “2 (g) “authorised agency” means the concerned Department of State Government or a body corporate or a company owned by it or a co- operative.” 15. From a perusal of the above quoted definition, it would show that the said definition is an inclusive definition thereby confining the term “authorized agency” to the Department of the State Government or a body corporate or a company owned by it or a cooperative. In other words, a private party, i.e. an independent contractor or a wholesaler with no State ownership does not fall within the close definition of the term “authorized agency”. 16. Clause 7 Order of 2015 is with the heading “Lifting of Foodgrains for the State”. Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015 being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “7. Lifting of foodgrains by States.—(1) The State Government shall lift Page No.# 12/20 foodgrains from the designated depots of the Corporation through its authorised agency.” 17. From the purview of the above quoted Sub-clause(1) of Clause 7 of the Order of 2015, it would show that the State Government shall lift foodgrains from the designated depots of the corporation, i.e. the Food Corporation of India through its authorized agency. In other words, the lifting of the foodgrains is expressly tied to the defined term “authorized agency”, and as such, a party not coming within the definition of “authorized agency” cannot perform this specified function. 18. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of Clause 7(11) of the Order of 2015, the reference to which the learned Senior Government Advocate for the State Government has laid emphasis upon. The said Clause is reproduced herein under:- “7 (11) The State Government shall devise suitable mechanism for transportation of foodgrains from the Corporation godown to the intermediate godown and the door-step delivery of the foodgrains to the fair price shop: Provided that the State Government may also transport foodgrains directly to the fair price shop from the Corporation godown and ensure its door- step delivery to the fair price shop.” 19. From a perusal of the above quoted Sub-Clause, it would show Page No.# 13/20 that the State Government has been conferred with the power to devise suitable mechanism for transportation of foodgrains from the corporation godowns to the intermediate godowns and the doorstep delivery of the foodgrains to the Fair Price Shops provided that the State Government may also transport foodgrains directly to the Fair Price Shops from the corporation godown and ensure its doorstep delivery to the Fair Price Shops. 20. It is relevant to take note of that in Clause 7(11) of the Order of 2015, there is no reference to the term "authorized agency", rather it uses the broader unrestricted phrase "suitable mechanism", leaving the choice of the transporter to the State Government's discretion. In this context, this Court now finds it relevant to take note of Annexure- III which is in connection with Clause 7(12) of the Order of 2015. The prescribed statement on door-step delivery expressly contemplates reporting by the State Civil Supplies Corporation or other Apex Body, Cooperative Societies, Private Agency, e.g. wholesalers, LAMPS, PACS, etc. or any other agency thereby confirming that the Central Government itself contemplated involvement of private agencies operating at the transportation of the delivery stage distinct from lifting stage under Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015. 21. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of Section 32 of the Act of 2013 which empowers the State Government to Page No.# 14/20 continue with or formulate food on nutrition based plans or schemes providing for benefits higher than the benefits provided under the Act of 2013 from its own resources. In other words, if the State of Assam wishes to provide additional benefits, the State of Assam can do so, but in respect to the benefits which flow from the Act of 2013, the State of Assam has to comply with the Order of 2015. 22. At this stage, this Court finds it very relevant to take note of a judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh vs. Delhi Consumer Food and Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, reported in 2022 SC OnLine Del 1485 where a question arose as to whether the Scheme which was formulated by the Delhi Government for doorstep delivery without the involvement of the Fair Price Shops was permissible in terms with the Order of 2015. The learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court categorically held that since the Act of 2013 specifically required that the scheme introduced by the Central Government shall be in such area and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government, the Delhi Government was bound to implement the proposed door-step delivery scheme only in the manner that the Central Government may prescribe and not otherwise, and accordingly, held that the Scheme introduced by the Delhi Government did not comply with the Act of 2013 and the Order of 2015. It was further observed that the Delhi Government would be Page No.# 15/20 entitled to frame a scheme for door-step delivery of the foodgrains/rations to the beneficiaries under TPDS at the door-steps of the TPDS beneficiaries, however, the same has to be done by the Delhi Government from its own resources in compliance with the prevailing laws. 23. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the impugned NIT. From a perusal of the impugned Tender Notice, it is seen that the NIT is for appointment of handling and transport contractor and fixation of rate for transportation of the foodgrains under the Act of 2013 for Nagaon District in a two-tier system of which Tier No.(i) was from the Food Corporation of India Godown to the GPSS/WCCS Godown and Tier No.(ii) from GPSS/WCCS Godown to FPS dealer/agent. In other words, what is being envisaged under the said NIT is that the Contractor who would be appointed shall lift the foodgrains from the Food Corporation of India Godown. A perusal of the impugned NIT would show that the contract to be awarded is a composite contract involving both the Tiers of handling and transportation, i.e. lifting from the FCI godowns and then transport to the GPSS/WCCS and then from GPSS/WCCS to the Fair Price Shops. 24. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of Clauses 2(C) (II) & 2(C)(III) of the impugned NIT, it would show that Bids were invited not only from the GPSS/WCCS but also from Page No.# 16/20 independent contractors such as a partnership firm/ company or even a proprietor having no relation with the State. In the opinion of this Court, taking into account the Scheme of the Act of 2013 read with the Order of 2015, the impugned NIT permitting participation of private individuals/firms/companies as contractors and further allowing such contractors to lift foodgrains from the FCI Godown run contrary to Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015 read with Sections 22 and 24 of the Act of 2013. The opinion of this Court is based upon a reading of Sections 22 and 24 of the Act of 2013 read with the Clauses of the Order of 2015. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that by virtue of Section 22 of the Act of 2015, the Central Government allocates the foodgrains to the State and provides the foodgrains at the designated depots of the Food Corporation of India. The State Government has to lift it through the Authorized Agency. 25. This aspect is further apparent from a reading of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The term "Authorized Agency" had been specifically defined to mean an agency which is under the pervasive control of the State Government, i.e. any Department of the State Government or a body corporate or a company by the State Government or a cooperative. The legislative wisdom as well as the mandate of the Central Government appears to have accountability in the Targeted Public Distribution System so that the foodgrains allocated to the State Government is received by the State Page No.# 17/20 Government and thereupon the State Government through its authorized agencies organize the intra-State transportation. Permitting private contractors to lift from the godowns of the Food Corporation of India is contrary to the provision of the Order of 2015 read with Sections 22 and 24 of the Act of 2013. 26. This Court however finds it relevant to observe that once the Authorized Agency lifts the foodgrains from the Food Corporation of India, there is no embargo for the Authorized Agency to carry out inter-State transportation of the foodgrains through any agency/contractors by following the settled principles of grant of public contracts. 27. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court Clause 2(C) (II) & (III) of the impugned Tender Notice dated 27.07.2026 runs counter to Clause 2(g) and Clause 7 of the said Order of 2015 read with Sections 22 and 24 of the Act of 2013. 28. Let this Court now take note of the point for determination as to whether the Petitioners have the locus standi to challenge Clause 2(C) (I) of the impugned NIT. The Petitioner herein admittedly would not fall within the definition of Clause 2(g) of the Order of 2015 in as much as the Petitioners are independent contractors having no relation with the State Government or a Cooperative Society. Page No.# 18/20 SECOND POINT FOR DETERMINATION 29. The Second Point for Determination is as to whether the impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.07.2026 is in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution in view of Clause 2C(I) of the impugned Tender Notice. Taking into account that the Petitioners would not come within the ambit of an “authorized agency” in terms with Clause 2(g) of the Order of 2015, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to question the terms of the tender in the present proceedings. This opinion is based upon the fact that Clause 2C(II) and Clause 2C(III) of the Tender Notice run contrary to the Order of 2015. 30. Be that as it may, this Court also finds it pertinent to observe that the eligibility criteria set out in Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT stipulates that the Bidders should have experience of one year in handling and transportation contracts under the Act of 2013. The present NIT is specifically floated for the purpose of choosing a contractor for handling and transportation of foodgrains under the Act of 2013. Under such circumstances, the tendering Authority would be within its Authority to stipulate conditions of eligibility requiring the bidders to have experience of at least one year in handling and transportation contracts under the Act of 2013. Apart from that, the tendering Authority is the best judge to decide the requirements for Page No.# 19/20 the contract and the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere unless a case of malafide or gross perversity is made out. 31. This Court also takes note of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that there is no uniformity in the tenders issued by the different District Administrations of the State under the Act of 2013 and as such the restrictive Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT should be interfered. It is in the opinion of this Court that merely because of the fact that the other District Administrations in the State of Assam have not inserted a restrictive Clause similar to Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT, the same would not render Clause 2(C)(I) of the impugned NIT violative to Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, this Court observes that the State of Assam should have a uniform set of guidelines to all the District administrations for issuing tenders under the Act of 2013. CONCLUSION 32. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) Clause 2C(II) and 2C(III) of the impugned Tender Notice dated 27.07.2026 runs contrary to Clause 2(g) and Clause 7(1) of the Order of 2015, and as such, the said two Clauses stand Page No.# 20/20 interfered with. (ii) The District Commissioner, Nagaon who is the Tendering Authority would be at liberty to proceed with the present tender process subject to issuance of a Corrigendum that only a Cooperative Society would be entitled to participate in the said Notice Inviting Tender. (iii) This Court is not inclined to interfere with Clause 2C(I) of the impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 27.07.2026 for the reasons already recorded herein above. (iv) The reliefs sought for in the writ petition stands rejected. (v) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.08.18 13:25:19 +05'30'