JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender process and issuance of a short Notice Inviting Tender dated 22.04.2025 for settling of the Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate for the period from 06.05.2025 to 31.12.2025. 3. The material facts as could be seen from the records are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council for settling of two vehicle gates namely Manderdisa Vehicle Gate and Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate with the bid value stated therein. In terms with the said Tender Notice, in respect to Manderdisa Vehicle Gate, the Bid value has been put at Rs.75,37,500/- and in respect to Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate, the Bid value has been put at Rs. 75,00,000/-. 4. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender, as many as 10 bidders participated in respect to Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate. Out of these 10 bidders, 5 bidders were found to be eligible. The 5 bidders who were found to be eligible were: Sl. No. Name of the Bidders Tender Value Offered 1 Sri Siddhartha Hojai Rs.2,87,50,200/- 2 Sri Martony Rupsi Rs.1,82,00,630/- 3 Sri Thairingdao Langthasa Rs.1,57,20,820/- 4 Sri Monkichand Hojai (Petitioner) Rs.1,43,00,900/- 5 Sri Joydesh Phonglo Rs.1,32,32,000/- 5. However, on 17.04.2025, the Respondent Authorities took a decision to go for retender on the ground that the official rate of Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate was Rs.75,00,000/- which is very minimal of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for which tender process should be done immediately by cancelling the tender. In addition to that, the Respondents have issued a fresh short Notice Inviting Tender on 22.04.2025 for settlement of the Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate for the period from 06.05.2025 to 31.12.2025 thereby putting the official bid value at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 01.05.2025 issued notice and stayed the short Tender Notice dated 22.04.2025 issued on 25.04.2025. The interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time. 7. It is seen that the Respondent Nos. 6. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 01.05.2025 issued notice and stayed the short Tender Notice dated 22.04.2025 issued on 25.04.2025. The interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time. 7. It is seen that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein it has been mentioned at paragraph No.4 that the Manderdisa Vehicle Gate was settled at Rs.5,00,70,000/- vide settlement order dated 02.05.2025 and therefore there was no reason to settle the Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate at Rs.2,87,50,000/- which was the rate offered by the highest bidder in respect to Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate. It was further mentioned that in order to get more revenue, the tender process was cancelled insofar as Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate and there was a decision to retender the same for the period from 06.05.2025 to 31.12.2025 and the minimum bid value was put at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Reply thereagainst have also been filed to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 8. When the matter was listed before this Court on 15.10.2025, this Court heard both the learned counsels for the parties and further enquired with Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities as to who is presently running the Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate in view of the stay being granted by this Court. It was submitted by Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel that it is being run by the Respondent Authorities on their own. It was further submitted that in order to get better revenue as that of the Manderdisa Vehicle Gate, the decision was taken to cancel the tender process in respect to Dittockcharra Vehicle Gate and go for a fresh tender. 9. Taking into account the above, as it was the stand of the Respondent Authorities that to get a higher amount, a decision was taken for going for retender, this Court enquired with the learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Authorities as to how much the Respondent Authorities have earned during the period from the Month of May, 2025 till 15.10.2025 and the same be placed before this Court. Accordingly, Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel today has placed before this Court an instruction dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee, N.C. Hills, Autonomous Council, Haflong which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 10. Accordingly, Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel today has placed before this Court an instruction dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee, N.C. Hills, Autonomous Council, Haflong which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 10. From a perusal of the statement and the revenue which have been earned, it is seen that for the period from the Month of May, 2025 to 15.10.2025, the total revenue earned is Rs.71,68,200/-. 11. This Court have duly heard the learned counsels for the parties on the basis of the above materials. 12. From the materials on record as well as the submissions, it appears that when the Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.03.2025 categorically had mentioned the bid value at Rs.75,00,000/- and when bids have been obtained far in excess, the reason so assigned for cancellation is on the ground that in another gate, the Respondent Authorities have settled at a higher rate which in the opinion of this Court does not appear to be reasonable but rather arbitrary more so, taking into account that from the collection so made by the Respondent Authorities themselves, from the Month of May till 15.10.2025 shows that the total amount collected is only Rs.71,68,200/- and the last date for collection would be on 31.12.2025. Accordingly, this Court therefore interferes with the decision of the Respondent Authorities dated 17.04.2025 for cancelling the tender process initiated on the basis of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.03.2025; the cancellation order dated 19.04.2025 and further the retender notice dated 24.04.2025. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The cancellation of the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.03.2025 vide a cancellation order dated 19.04.2025 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The retender notice so issued on 22.04.2025 is further set aside and quashed. (iii) The Respondents are given the liberty to grant the settlement for the remaining period up till 31.12.2025 to the eligible bidders in accordance with law. (iv) Mr. D. Thousen, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C. Hills submitted that the same would be done within a period of 2 (two) weeks.