Sitananda Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

4:THE TENDER/BID COMMITTEE FOR GRANT OF FRESH IMFL OFF SHOPS OF DIST. LAKHIMPUR REP. BY THE DISTRICT DIST. LAKHIMPUR (EXCISE) CUM CHAIRMAN LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.

¶13

5:RISHAB KUMAR BORAH

¶14

S/O. TARUN KUMAR BORAH R/O. CHANDMARI HARMOTI HARMOTI GAON NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-786416

¶15

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Excise Department. : Mr. K.J. Saikia, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

– B E F O R E –

¶18

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶19

15.06.2026

¶20

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶21

We have heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.J. Saikia, learned Advocate for respondent No.5/writ petitioner (answering respondent).

¶22

A tender notice was issued for grant of IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) retail “Off” Shop Licence in Lakhimpur district; pursuant to which, the appellant and respondent No.5 along with others had participated.

¶23

The bid of respondent No.5 was rejected on technical ground of the tender papers not being signed in all the pages.

¶24

The respondent No.5 immediately questioned such disqualification vide WP(C) No.1671/2024, in which an interim order was passed directing the respondent/State not to issue any licence to the appellant herein, who had already been selected.

¶25

The issue was finally decided by the learned Single Judge in which it was found that the disqualification of the present respondent No.5 was absolutely justified because he had not signed every page of the uploaded tender documents.

¶26

However, the learned Single judge, going beyond the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 herein, found that even the

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

appellant, as a successful bidder would not be entitled for licence as he had also violated an essential tender condition under Clause 2.1 of the Bid Document, requiring proof of filing the Income Tax Return for 3(three) out of last 4(four) years’, which had to be duly certified by a Chartered Accountant.

¶29

Thus, the learned Single Judge held that the disqualification of respondent No.5 herein was justified and also directed that the appellant herein ought not to be given the licence on the same logic of not complying with the provisions contained in Clause 2.1 of the Bid Document. The matter was remitted to the authorities for a fresh consideration with a condition that from the remaining bidders, if anyone was successful and would be found to be highest offerer, he ought to be given the licence.

¶30

This Court notices that the bid was floated for the year 20242025. During the litigation, no licence for IMFL “Off” Shop was issued for that financial year.

¶31

Nothing had happened in the next financial year of 2025-2026 too.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the directions issued in the aforenoted writ petition by the learned Single Judge has now become stale, which cannot be given effect to because licences are normally granted for one financial/or calendar year.

¶33

Thus, without commenting upon the judgment impugned in the present appeal, we hold that the entire case has become stale and that the Excise Department would have the freedom of issuing a fresh tender

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

for grant of IMFL retail “Off” Shop licence in case it is required.

¶36

This appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

¶37

In case the appellant and respondent No.5 apply for return of their Earnest Money Deposits (EMD), the same may be considered and if permissible may be returned.

¶38

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Sitananda Hazarika v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitananda Hazarika v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraful Hamid Vs Preetom Saikia,Ias and 3 Ors.

Mridul Kumar Laskar Vs Mamata Hojai

Dilip Kumar Talukdar and 4 Ors. Vs Dr. Bijoya Chuodhury and 2 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Hem Chandra Borah

Bahar Ahmad Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Balen Roy Medhi and Anr.