Dismissed

Md. Muzzamul Haque v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2018I.A.(Civil)/764/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing an interlocutory application to quash a settlement notice. The court held the petition was not tenable as the legality of the tender process is already challenged in the connected Writ Petition; subsequent developments should have been raised in the writ petition via affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of as not tenable; application for quashing of settlement notice dismissed.

Md. Muzzamul Haque Vs the State of Assam and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010045442018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 764/2018

¶5

1:MD. MUZZAMUL HAQUE

¶6

S/O- LT USMAN ALI, R/O- SINGIA PATHAR, P.O. DAGAON, P.S. JURIA, DISTNAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782124

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAON ZILLA PARISHAD NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶11

3:EXECUTIVE OFFICER JURIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶12

4:MD. HARUN AL RASID S/O- LT ABDUL KADIR R/O- SAMDHARA P.O. DAGAON P.S. JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶13

5:MD. SHAJAHAN

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

S/O- BACIR UDDIN R/O- SAMDHARA P.O. DAGAON P.S. JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶16

6:MD. KUTUB UDDIN S/O- ABDUL SATTAR R/O- SAMDHARA P.O. DAGAON P.S. JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶17

7:MD. BAHARUL ISLAM S/O- RAFIKUL ISLAM R/O- SAMDHARA P.O. DAGAON P.S. JURIA DIST- NAGAON ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 04-04-2018

¶24

Heard Mr. PK Garadia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SR Baruah, learned Govt.

¶25

Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶26

In this application, the settlement notice in favour of the respondent No. 4 has been sought for quashing. There is no dispute in the bar that the connected Writ Petition No. 8134/2017 includes and challenges the order of re-tendering of the earlier tender process wherein the present petitioner participated. The impugned work order is the outcome of the said re-tendering process. As the legality of the re-tendering process is already under challenge under such circumstances the prayer made in

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

this interlocutory application is not required. In fact the petitioner has the right to bring the subsequent development by filing an additional affidavit in the writ petition itself but not in an interlocutory application for stay of the operation of the impugned settlement order already issued in the re-tendering process.

¶29

Accordingly this petition is not tenable and the same is disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Md. Muzzamul Haque v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Muzzamul Haque v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monoj Kr. Shahni Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Md. Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sandeep Agarwalla Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Raj Narayan Shah and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Anima Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors. (B)