WP(C) 3739/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the Director of Printing a nd Stationery, Assam, Guwahati, Respondent No. 2 issued a NIT dated 12.2.2008 in viting sealed tender from the Local Registered Firms and Manufacturer for supply of different varieties of paper as detailed in the Tender Notice. Clause IV of the NIT provides that a tender accompanied by VAT Regis tration Certificate, Municipality Trade Licence, and Firm Registration Certifica te duly attested by Govt. Gazetted Officer must be enclosed, failing which tend er will not be accepted. The petitioner is not a registered firm and as such it was issued a Firm Registration Certificate by the sale tax authorities. The petitioner not being a partnership firm no Firm Registration Certificate was enclosed by him at the t ime of submission of tender. It is the case of the petitioner that the other nec essary documents as required in terms of Clause 4 of the NIT were submitted by the petitioner alongwith the tender. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said c ounter at Para 3 it is stated that the petitioner at time of submission of the tender papers has enclosed the VAT Registration certificate in his name as propr ietor, of the firm but he did not submit the Firm Registration Certificate. Thus the contention of the petitioner have not been disputed in the counter. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioner is a proprietorial firm. No provisions of law could be brought to my notice that the proprietorial firm should also be a registered firm like a Private Firm under the statute. Such re gistration is necessary in respect of the partnership firm under the registratio n of Firm’s Act. But the petitioner being a proprietorial firm the aforesaid pro vision is not applicable in his case. Although in the NIT dated 28.5.2008 it is provided that the sealed ten ders were invited from the Local Registered Firms and Manufacturer but at the sa me time the proprietorial firm is not debarred from submitting the tender. It is not the case of the respondents that a proprietorial firm is debarred in such tender and it cannot be said that the said NIT is restricted on ly to a partnership firm. In that view of the matter, the authority will see that the tender of the petitioner is not rejected on the count it being a proprietorial firm for non submission of Firm Registration Certificate and consider the tender of the petitioner on merit alongwith other tenders. With the aforesaid directions and observations this writ petition stands finally disposed of.