Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010031852024 2026:GAU-AS:729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1032/2024 GITUL MEDHI S/O LATE HAREKRISHNA MEDHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOHORIHAT, PO BOHORIHAT, PS AND DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781302 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 783370 ASSAM 3:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 783370 ASSAM 4:THE FINANCE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 783370 ASSAM 5:THE COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 783370 ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 6:SHRI PRASANTA DEKA S/O UNKNOWN RESIDENT OF NO. 1 GOLIAHATI BARPETA ASSAM 781301 7:SHRI DHANJIT KR. DAS S/O UNKNOWN RESIDENT OF ABHAYAPURI DHARAMPUR WARD NO. 1 PO ABHAYAPURI DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783384 8:SHRI GUNAJIT DAS S/O SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN DAS RESIDENT OF BELORTALI BARPETA ASSAM 781301 9:RABIN DEKA S/O UNKNOWN RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 30 BASISTHA CHARIALI NEAR MANDIR GUWAHAT BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. N. S. Thakuria, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. D. Borah, Standing Counsel : Mr. N. R. Sharma, Standing Counsel · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 21.01.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/5 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms. N. S. Thakuria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. M. D. Borah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. N. R. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The other Respondents however have not appeared taking into account that the service have not yet been completed. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in permitting the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 to take the possession of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-16B-6914 and AS-16F-9812 respectively in spite of the fact that the said Respondents did not submit the total bid amount within a period of 3 (three) days as stated in the notice dated 18.01.2024. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner was the second highest eligible bidder in respect to these two vehicles and as the said Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 failed to deposit the bid amount within the period of 3 (three) days in terms with the notice dated 18.01.2024, the Respondent Authorities ought to have therefore offered the said two vehicles to the Petitioner who was the second highest eligible bidder. Being aggrieved by such actions, the present writ petition has been filed. Page No.# 4/5 4. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order dated 28.02.2024 issued notice thereby directing the Petitioner to take steps upon the Respondent No.6 to 9 by Registered Post with A/D. The materials on record show that the service could not be affected upon the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 on account of insufficient address. 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.3 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein it has been mentioned that the Respondent No.6 offered the bid amount of Rs.6,11,666/- and the Respondent No.8 also offered the bid amount of Rs.3,35,501/-. It was also mentioned that vide the notice dated 18.01.2024, the final list of the bidders of the auctioned vehicles of BTC Secretariat, Kokrajhar was released and thereafter by subsequent notice dated 19.01.2024, the last date for submission of the bid amount was extended up to 02.02.2024. 6. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of that the bid so submitted by the Petitioner in respect to the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-16F-9805 was Rs.5,51,502/- which was Rs.60,164/- less than the Respondent No.6. Similarly, in respect to the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-16F-9812, the Petitioner’s bid amount was Rs.3,01,102/- whereas the Respondent No.8’s offer was Rs.34,339/- above to that of the Petitioner. It is also apparent from the records that though the period was extended up to 02.02.2024 for deposit of the bid amounts, both the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 were handed over the vehicles on 29.01.2024 much prior to the last date i.e. 02.02.2024 upon deposit of their bid amounts. Page No.# 5/5 7. This Court has also taken note of that the Petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 19.01.2024 whereby the period was extended up to 02.02.2024. 8. Considering the fact that the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 have quoted higher amount and were also evaluated as the highest bidders and there was an extension given up to 02.02.2024, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of the Respondent Authorities in handing over the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-16B-6914 and AS-16F-9812 to the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 respectively. 9. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.01.22 10:42:23 +05'30'