JUDGMENT & ORDER : The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the action of the respondents by issuing the Work Order for supply of Pea-Gravel (2mm to 4.75 mm) for construction work inasmuch as the respondent No.6 did not submit the valid Trade License to collect/sell pea-gravel from the appropriate Government Department [Forest Department]. Submission of valid FTL, CST & Experience Certificate, according to the petitioner is the essential condition of the DNIT No. DT-14/PEA-GRAVEL/EE/RD-BSGD/15-16 dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition). But the petitioner has however admitted that so far the rate is concerned, the respondent No.6 quoted the lowest rate and the petitioner has quoted the second lowest price. The petitioner has asserted that he has submitted all the documents as per the said DNIT. 2. The official respondents by filing their reply, has admitted that the petitioner had raised objection as the respondent No.6 did not file those license/papers. They have also admitted that the bidders were asked to submit the valid Forest Trade License (FTL). True it is, the respondent No.6 did not submit the said Forest Trade License (FTL). In para 14 of their reply, the respondents have averred that the respondent No.6 was found lowest bidder as the pea-gravel has been considered not as forest item, rather as mineral. 3. The Forest Department by their letter dated 21.04.2016 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 to 5) has stated that pea-gravel is a forest produce. Once again, as directed by the District Magistrate & Collector, the Forest Department was requested to clarify the status of pea-gravel as forest produce or mineral. Then the Forest Department by their letter dated 09.06.2016 has ascertained that pea-gravel is a mineral and may also be termed as forest produce, if collected from forest. 4. Having such clarification from the Forest Department, the Higher Purchase Committee has considered that pea-gravel is a mineral and hence, Forest Trade License (FTL) is not required. Thus, the Higher Purchase Committee had declared the tender submitted by the respondent No.6 formal and, accordingly they have considered his rate. 5. The petitioner also on 01.09.2016 submitted a representation that he was willing to supply the pea-gravel at the rate that has been approved by the Higher Purchase Committee i.e. the rate that was quoted by the respondent No.6. 6. Apparently, the petitioner has illustrated a strong foundation for interference. 5. The petitioner also on 01.09.2016 submitted a representation that he was willing to supply the pea-gravel at the rate that has been approved by the Higher Purchase Committee i.e. the rate that was quoted by the respondent No.6. 6. Apparently, the petitioner has illustrated a strong foundation for interference. But this court having gone through the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Shri Chitta Ranjan Saha vs. State Of Tripura And Ors., reported in 1989 (2) GLR 101 did not find the said foundation as adequate to interfere in the tender process which is fundamentally a commercial transaction. In Chitta Ranjan Saha (supra), the Gauhati High Court has held as under : “This being the factual position it is difficult to hold that pea-gravels is stone chip, stone or sub-products of stone. There is no material on record to show that in trade circle or in common parlance pea-gravels are known as stone or sub-products of stone.” 7. The Forest Department, according to the respondents, by the communication dated 21.04.2016 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 to 5), had communicated that “Gravel” is a forest produce as per the Tripura Minor Mineral Concessions Rule, 2014. The Forest Department had further ascertained that separate classification such as “Pea-Gravel” was not there in the Rule. The said communication is of no aid and is not definite, rather ambiguous. By the subsequent communication dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure-R/2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 to 5), the Forest Department had given a clear clarification by stating that “Pea-Gravel” as per Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a mineral produce and would be termed as a forest produce if it is found or is brought from a forest. Even the subsequent communication does not clearly state that the pea-gravel is not a forest produce as contended by the official respondents in their reply, rather if pea-gravel is collected from the forest that would be treated as the forest produce for which the person who collected the pea-gravel would require the Forest Trade License (FTL). 8. It appears clearly that the premise that the pea-gravel is not a forest produce on which the requirement of furnishing Forest Trade License (FTL) has been waived in favour of the respondent No.6 is, according to this court, not sustainable and, hence the decision of the Higher Purchase Committee is interfered with and quashed. 9. 8. It appears clearly that the premise that the pea-gravel is not a forest produce on which the requirement of furnishing Forest Trade License (FTL) has been waived in favour of the respondent No.6 is, according to this court, not sustainable and, hence the decision of the Higher Purchase Committee is interfered with and quashed. 9. Since it reveals that the petitioner has offered the same rate as that of the respondent No.6, who did not file the basic documents to fulfil the essential tender conditions, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following declaration and direction: (i) The tender submitted by the respondent No.6 was not in form and the same shall be rejected by the Higher Purchase Committee; and (ii) If the petitioner is agreeable to supply the specified best quality Pea-Gravel (2mm to 4.75 mm Nominal Size) for construction work against various schemes within Bishalgarh, Charilam, Jampuijala, Boxanagar, Mohanbhog, Nalchar and Kathalia R.D. Block under the jurisdiction of R.D. Bishramganj Division, at the rate as was quoted by the respondent No.6, the Higher Purchase Committee shall issue the supply order in favour of the petitioner, subject to the other conditions as described in the NIT. 10. In the result, the work order, if any, issued in favour for the respondent No.6, shall be cancelled forthwith. It is made clear that if the petitioner is not inclined to cause supply at the rate as quoted by the respondent No.6, the official respondent shall be at liberty to float a fresh tender for procurement of the best quality Pea-Gravel (2mm to 4.75 mm nominal size) for construction work against various schemes from the resourceful suppliers. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Interim order as passed earlier shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.