Madhusudan Baishya v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged termination of cafeteria operation agreement due to faulty electric load. Bench quashed impugned order mechanically applying tender clause. Court directed refund of deposits and allowed participation in future tenders but declined to permit operation of old agreement.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order quashed; deposits refunded; petitioner allowed to participate in future tenders for the cafeteria.
What the court decided
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010057322020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1831/2020
MADHUSUDAN BAISHYA S/O- SARBESWAR BAISHYA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 6, JYOTI PATH, GEETANAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781024, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, DISPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS WILDLIFE AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GHY.- 781037 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION KAMRUP(M) GHY - 781005 ASSAM.
4:TEJAS MARISWAMY THE D.F.O. ASSAM STATE ZOO DIVISION KAMRUP(M) GHY.- 781005 ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the appeal by mechanically applying the tender clause without considering the inoperability due to lack of electric load was sustainable?
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to operate the cafeteria given the loss of tender opportunity period or be allowed to participate in any future tender?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Madhusudan Baishya
- respondent
State of Assam
- respondent
Secy. to the Govt. of Assam
- respondent
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Wildlife & Chief Wildlife Warden Assam
- respondent
Divisional Forest Officer Assam State Zoo
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Gauhati HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP(C)/1831/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court