Gauhati High Court
Sri Minku Hazarika vs The State Of Assam & & 6 Ors on 5 May, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 1087 (GAU.)
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
WP(C) No.2268 of 2017
Sri Minku Hazarika .... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Assam & others. ... ... Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM For the petitioner : Mr. N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Sundi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Y. Doloi,
Addl. Advocate General, Assam.
Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 28.04.2017.
Date of Judgment : 05.05.2017.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. B. Chakraorty, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.7. WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 1 of 21
2. By filing this writ petition the order dated 31.03.2017 issued by the Jorhat Municipal Board ( respondent no 5) granting settlement of the "Truck Stand" in favour of respondent No.7 has been put to challenge.
3. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, is that on 13.02.2017 the Jorhat Municipal Board i.e. the respondent No.5 had issued a tender notice inviting bids for settlement of various markets/stands/parking areas under it for a period of 12 months with effect from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. As per the tender notice dated 13.02.2017 the last date for submission of bids was fixed on 21.03.2017 and the quotations were to be opened at 11.00 a.m. on 22.03.2017. The tender notice dated 13.03.2017 had further stipulated that the bidders will have to submit bids in two parts and the 'technical bid' and the 'price bid' should be written on it as "Envelope No.1" and "Envelope No.2" respectively. The Envelope No.1 would be opened first and if the technical bid is found to be correct then only the name of the bidder would be entered in the Comparative Statement (CS) whereafter, the Envelope No.2 i.e. the price bid would be opened.
4. In response to the tender notice dated 13.02.2017 the writ petitioner had submitted his bid for the "Truck Stand. Although the date of opening of the bids was originally notified as 22.03.201, the WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 2 of 21 said date was subsequently extended to 24.03.2017 at 1.00 p.m. The technical bids were opened on 24.03.2017. After opening all the technical bids, a comparative statement was prepared incorporating the names of as many as 21 bidders. The price bids were, thereafter, opened on 29.03.2017 and it was found that the writ petitioner had quoted the price of Rs.12,74,150/- (Rupees twelve lakhs seventy four thousand one hundred fifty) whereas the respondent No.7 had quoted a price of Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety thousand). Although the price quoted by the petitioner was higher than that of the respondent No.7 yet, the settlement of the truck stand was made in favour of the respondent No.7 by the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 by ignoring the higher price bid of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
5. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed joint counter affidavit inter
- alia contending that on 29.03.2017 a meeting of the Jorhat Municipal Board ( respondent No 5) was held wherein it was decided that settlement would be given to the bidders who have quoted less than 50% above the Government rate and in case no bidder submits tender below 50% above the Government rate then the settlement would be given near to the above 50% to the Government rate. According to the said respondents, the rate quoted by the writ petitioner was 49.99% above the Government rate and as such, the same was treated as equivalent to 50% above the rates. On such WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 3 of 21 ground the price bid submitted by the writ petitioner was found to be ineligible. Since the bid of the respondent No.7 was the highest amongst those quoting below 50% of the Government rate, hence, a decision was taken by the Board to award the contract in favour of the respondent No.7. Accordingly, the settlement order dated 31.03.2017 was issued in his favour.
6. The respondent No. 7 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it has been inter-alia contended that the writ petitioner had resorted to corrupt practice by erasing the original figures mentioned in his tender document which was above 50% of the Government rate and thereafter, the amount of Rs.12,74,150/- was inserted so as to bring his price bid in conformity with the decision of the Board to award the contract to only those bidders who had quoted less than 50% above the Government rate fixed for the market/stand/parking. It has further been stated that the writ petitioner had submitted Income Tax return for three years at a time in a manner which is impressible under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the bid of the petitioner was technically defective on such count as well. The respondent No 7 has supported the bid evaluation criteria evolved by the respondent No 5.
7. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that the respondent No.5 had never informed the bidders about the bid evaluation criteria of limiting the eligibility of the WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 4 of 21 price bids to only those tenderers who have quoted less than 50% above the Government rate. According to Mr. Dutta, the criteria employed by the respondent No.5 for rejecting the bid submitted by the writ petitioner was evolved only after opening the technical and price bids with the sole object of extending undue favour to the respondent No.7.
8. By referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Educomp Solutions Ltd. and others vs. State of Assam and others, reported in (2006) 3 GLR 117, Mr. Dutta submits that the selection criteria, not notified at the time of issuance of the tender or at least before submission of the bids, could not have been applied by the respondent Board so as to eliminate the writ petitioner from contention in the tender process.
9. Mr. Dutta has further contended that even assuming that the criteria evolved by the Board in its meeting dated 29.03.2017 is held to be a valid one, even then the petitioner's price bid admittedly being less than 50% above the Government rate, the same ought to have been accepted as the highest valid bid since his technical bid has been found to be valid. Referring to the price quoted by the petitioner the learned senior counsel argued that there was no legitimate basis for the respondents to arrive at a conclusion that 49.99% would amount to 50% above the Government rate nor has any such decision been taken by the Board at any point of time. Such being the position, the rejection of the price bid of the petitioner, according to WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 5 of 21 Mr. Dutta, was completely arbitrary and illegal thereby vitiating the impugned decision of the respondent No 5 to award the settlement of the Truck Stand in favour of the respondent No 7.
10. By referring to the common judgment and order dated 15-02- 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Achinta Das vs. State of Assam and others in WP(C) No.5572/2016 and the batch of connected writ petitions, Mr. Dutta submits that the respondent No.5 had resorted to similar tactics even while processing the NIT floated for the previous year for settlement of markets/stands/parking whereby an attempt was made to eliminate the eligible bidders quoting higher prices by evolving a bid evaluation criteria of viability range which was never notified at the time of floating the tender. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge had set aside the award made in favour of the successful bidders by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- in each case. Mr Dutta submits that notwithstanding the categorical finding recorded by this Court in the case of Achinta Das (supra), the respondent Board has once again adopted the same policy of evolving un-disclosed criteria for evaluation of the bids thereby showing utter disregard to the order passed by this Court. Mr. Dutta has, therefore, prayed for initiating appropriate proceeding against the Chairman of the Board for committing contempt of this Court. WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 6 of 21
11. Resisting the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, has contended that the respondent No.5 Board was concerned with the harassment meted out to the public by the lessees who are usually found to charge parking fee far in excess of the notified rates. Such illegalities are generally prompted by the desire of the contractor to recover the heavy investment made by quoting a very high rate in the tender. Keeping such public interest in mind, the respondent Board had taken a decision to put a ceiling on the tender value with a view to discourage any excess recovery from the public. Since the decision of the board is aimed at transferring the benefit to the public, hence, submits Mr. Doloi, there is no illegality or infirmity in the bid evaluation criteria evolved by the respondent Board.
12. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in (2007)14 SCC 517 Mr. Doloi submits that the criteria evolved in the meeting dated 29.03.2017 has been uniformly applied in the case of all the bidders. Moreover, all the interested bidders including the writ petitioner was present in the meeting held on 29.03.2017 and had given his consent to the criteria evolved by the respondent No 5 which would be apparent from the Attendance Register. Since the decision has been taken by following the principles of fairness, equity and transparency with the ultimate object of WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 7 of 21 benefiting the public, submits Mr. Doloi, this court would not interfere with such decision of the Board in exercise of power of judicial review.
Mr. Doloi has also produced the records as called for by this Court.
13. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.7, has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Doloi and has further submitted that since the technical bid of the writ petitioner itself was defective due to reasons mentioned in the affidavit, the petitioner would not have any locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. On such ground, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with cost.
14. In his reply, Mr. Dutta has produced copies of the income tax return filed by the writ petitioner for the three consecutive years to contend that the objection to the technical validity of his bid is totally unfounded. The learned senior further submits that it is always open for a bidder to revise his bid by using eraser. So long as the same is done by following the due process, there can be nothing objectionable about the same. The mere fact that the petitioner had not put his initials while correcting the figures cannot render his price bid as invalid in the eye of law.
15. I have considered the rival submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record produced by Mr. Doloi. It is not in dispute that as per the tender notice dated WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 8 of 21 13.02.2017 the date of opening of the bids was fixed on 22.03.2017 at 11.00 a.m. However, from the records I find that a meeting of the Board was convened on 17.03.2017 at 2.00 p.m. wherein a decision was taken to defer the date of opening the bids to 24.03.2017 at 1.00 p.m. From a perusal of the minutes of the meeting held on 17.03.2017, a copy whereof has been produced by the learned state counsel, it appears that a decision was taken to return the tenders already submitted by some of the bidders and thereafter receive the tenders in the newly printed forms. Therefore, the need to defer the date of opening the bids was felt by the Board.
16. There is no dispute about the fact that the technical bids were opened on 24-03-2017 where after a comparative statement was prepared by the Board on 28/29-03-2017. From the comparative statement it is seen that as many as 21 bidders had submitted tenders for the truck stand. One Hemanta Das had quoted the highest price of Rs 42,50,000/-. The next highest bid was that of Sri Pankaj Bora, who had quoted the price of Rs 27,20,000/-. Another bidder Sri Dipak Kumar Das had quoted 24,22,500 /- whereas Sri A. Muktiar had quoted Rs 21,25,000/-. As per the comparative statement, the technical bids submitted by all the above bidders were found to be valid. It, however, appears from the records that the bid submitted by all the aforesaid bidders quoting such high price had been rejected on the ground that the rate quoted by them were above 50% of the government rate.
WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 9 of 21
17. From the comparative statement prepared by the Board, it is further seen that the writ petitioner had emerged in the 11th (eleventh) position whereas the respondent No 7 was at the 12th position as per the price quoted by them and the tender submitted by both the bidders had been found to be technically valid.
18. In the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos 1 to 6 it has been stated that the bid submitted by the writ petitioner having been found to be 49.99 % less than 50% above the Government rate, the same was rejected. In this context, the statements made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit will be relevant and is therefore extracted here-in-below :-
"4. That with regard to the statements made in the paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition the answering deponent vehemently denied the same and further states that the Jorhat Municipal Board (hereinafter called as Board) invited tender from the intended tenderers to give settlement of the market/stand/parking under JMB for the year 2017-18 and the Truck Stand is also a stand for which tender was called for, accordingly 21 tender papers have been submitted by the various tenderers/bidders by quoting their own rates. The tender was two bid system and tenders have to submit separately the technical bid and price bid in respect of concerned market/stand/parking. The Board prior to the opening of the price bid it was resolved in Board meeting dated 29.3.2017 that the settlement will be given below 50% to the Government rate and if any market/stand/parking no bidder submits below the 50% to the Government rate for the year 2017-18, then settlement WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 10 of 21 shall be given near to the above 50% to the Government rate. In the present case the petitioner quoted his rate 49.9% above to the Government rate and as per resolution of the Board meeting dated 29.3.2017, same is amount to be 50% and therefore, he was found ineligible to give settlement the Truck Stand for the year 2017-18 as per resolution of the meeting dated 29.3.2017. Further, he used whitener/eraser in his price bid and without putting his initial signature in support to such correction in his price bid."
19. From a meticulous scrutiny of the tender document it is found that there is no mention of the fact that only those price bids, the value of which was found to be less than 50% above the Government rate, shall be accepted. Admittedly, the aforesaid decision was adopted in the meeting dated 29.03.2017 and therefore, it is clear that the evaluation criteria was evolved not only after the submission of the bids but even after those bids were opened. It is also not in dispute that the price bids of as many as eleven bidders quoting higher price than the respondent No 7 had been rejected by applying the said evaluation criteria.
20. In the case of Educomp Solutions Ltd. and others (supra) this Court has held that the criteria for awarding marks in a tender evaluation process is required to be notified in details at the threshold i.e. while issuing the tender notice but if such criteria is not notified at the beginning, the same should be made known to all the interested WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 11 of 21 bidders at least before the submission of the bids by duly informing them about the proposed criteria to be applied and the methodology to be adopted in awarding the marks to evaluate the technical and commercial bids as the same is an essential requirement of the rule of transparency and fairness. In the said decision, this Court has further held that in the absence of such communication to the bidders, the contention that the decision makers applied hidden criteria evolved as a tailor made to suit the private respondent acquires legitimacy.
21. Even in the case in hand, the respondent Board has admittedly evaluated the commercial bids by applying such criteria, as noted above, which was never informed to the bidders at any stage before the submission of the bids. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the decision of Educomp Solutions Ltd. and others (supra) would be squarely applicable in the present case as well. The respondent no. 5 was not correct in formulating fresh criteria for evaluation of the commercial bids only after the opening of the bids. I, therefore, find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Dutta that such criteria for evaluation of the price bid was tailor made so as to extend undue favour to the Respondent No 7.
22. In the above context it would be significant to note herein that the Government value of the "Truck Stand" had been fixed at Rs.8,50,000/-. Therefore, the price bid of Rs.12,74,150/- made by the WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 12 of 21 writ petitioner was apparently less than 50% above the Government rate. Despite repeated queries made by this Court the learned Additional Advocate General has failed to produce any material so as to indicate the basis on which the price bid of the writ petitioner was held to be ineligible even under the criteria evolved by the Board. Although Mr. Doloi has made an attempt to justify the said decision by stating that 49.99% was rounded off to 50% and that is how the bid of the petitioner was found to be ineligible, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, I am not inclined to accept such an argument. There could be instances where such fraction of a figure would have to be rounded off so as to arrive at a workable whole number. But in the present case, I find no reason as to why the price bid submitted by the writ petitioner could not have been assessed taking the same as 49.99% above the Government rate.
23. As noted above, the criteria employed by the respondent No 5 for evaluation of the bids had been admittedly and evidently evolved after opening the bids. Although Mr Doloi has made an attempt to convince this court that the petitioner had given consent to such criteria being applied for evaluation of the bids, yet, from the records produced by the learned State counsel, no such consent on the part of the petitioner is discernable. The mere fact that the petitioner was present in the meeting held on 29-03-2017 cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that he had consented to the bid evaluation methodology evolved by the respondent No.5. Even assuming that WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 13 of 21 the petitioner had consented to the bid evaluation criteria of accepting only the rates that were less than 50% of the Government rates, even in that case, the basis on which his bid was rejected is found to be totally unacceptable . Moreover, an invalid process of bid evaluation cannot be legitimized merely obtaining the consent of the prospective beneficiaries.
24. In the context of what has been discussed herein above, it would be relevant to mention herein that the respondent No.5 had earlier floated tender notice for settlement of the market/stand/ parking for the previous year i.e. 2016-17 pertaining to the period from 01.07.2016 to 31.07.2017 i.e. for a period of nine months. It appears that even on that occasion, after the technical and price bids were opened, the tenders submitted by several bidders quoting much higher price was rejected by taking a plea that a "viability range" had been worked out by the Board so as to protect the public interest. Aggrieved by such decision of the Board, a number of interested bidders had approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing WP(C) Nos.5572/2016, 5575/2016, 5599/2016, 5707/2016, 6236/2016. After discussing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 53, this Court in Achinta Das vs. State of Assam and others (supra) had categorically held that the methodology adopted by the Board was clearly arbitrary and was adopted to show favoritism to the selected tenderers. Be it mentioned WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 14 of 21 herein that in the said process, although the respondent No.5 had taken a plea that the viability range was adopted to eliminate the higher price bids so as to protect the public interest, yet, it turned out that the Board had itself settled the "Natun Bazar" at a bid value which was 777% above the estimated value. An attempt had been made to justify the arbitrary action of fixing such high value by stating that the Board having run the "Natun Bazar" by itself, from the experience gather by the Board, it was of the opinion that tolls can be collected above 777% of the estimated tender value. By rejecting such contention made by the respondent No 5 Board, this Court had allowed all the writ petitions by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- each. The observation made in paragraphs 19 & 20 of the said judgment would be relevant and are therefore, quoted herein below for ready reference :-
"19. It is not in dispute that the Board had also settled a market at 777% above the estimated rate. Such action is sought to be defended by the Board by contending that as the Board had run the market in the past, the potential of the market was known to the Board. No materials have been placed by the Board to justify that the rates offered by the petitioners are exorbitant. Materials on record demonstrate that the tenders of the petitioners had been rejected arbitrarily to show favourtism to the selected tenderers. The action of the Board in selecting the private respondents in the instant cases is against public interest. The settlement orders have been made in favour of the WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 15 of 21 private respondents for illegal and extraneous consideration.
20. In that view of the matter, the settlements orders issued in favour of respondent No. 5 in WP(C) 5572/2016, WP(C) 5575/2016, WP(C) 5599/2016 and WP(C) 6236/2016 and that of respondent No. 6 in WP(C) 5707/2016 are set aside and quashed."
25. In the case of Jespar I. Slong vs. State of Meghalaya and others, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 485, the Supreme Court has observed that obtaining higher revenue by accepting the highest bid would only be in public interest because the State would gain more revenue from it. Offering of the bid after knowing the commercial value of the contract is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the tenderer.
26. In the present case, I find from the record that the tender notice itself has fixed the rates at which parking fee can be realized by the lessee. It is clear from the materials on record that regardless of the value at which the tender is settled, it would be impermissible for the lessee to recover parking fee at a rate in excess of what has been indicated in the tender notice. If the lessee is found to be violating the terms of settlement by realizing parking fees at a higher rate, there is nothing stopping the respondent No.5 from taking appropriate penal action against the lessee. Therefore, this is not a contract where the principle of predatory pricing would have any bearing. Such being the WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 16 of 21 position, the contention of the respondents that such a measure was evolved only to protect the public interest appears to be wholly preposterous and hence, does not merit acceptance by this Court.
27. There can be hardly any doubt about the fact that the employer would always be at liberty to frame policy for awarding settlement of the markets/stands/parking areas under it and to such extent, it would also be open for the respondent No 5 to evolve the criteria/ methodology for evaluating the bids. But whatever be the criteria followed for evaluation of the tenders , the same must be fair and transparent. Fairness would demand that the bid evaluation criteria be made known to the bidders well in advance so as to enable them to offer their bid by understanding the contract. The evaluation of the bids cannot be made on the basis of criteria evolved after the opening of the tenders so as to work to the advantage of a particular bidder since such a process would not only be wholly arbitrary but would also amount to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun.
28. From the proceedings of the meeting held on 29.03.2017 it is seen that the a few of members including the member from Ward No.8 had categorically raised objection against "50% criteria" stating that the same would be contrary to the NIT and therefore, a suggestion was made to make the settlement of the bazaar/hat/stand as per the NIT. Not only that , in the judgment rendered in the case of WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 17 of 21 Achinta Das vs. State of Assam and others (supra), this court had deprecated such practice adopted earlier by the respondent board of employing bid evaluation criteria evolved after opening of the bids. But despite the same, the respondent No 5 had once gain evaluated the price bids by applying criteria that was evolved after the opening of the bids. It is sad that notwithstanding the earlier decision of this court, a statutory body like the respondent no 5 board has turned a deaf ear to the observations made by the court and has deliberately chosen to adopt a bid evaluation process which was contrary to the letter and spirit of the decision in the case of Achinta Das vs. State of Assam and others.
29. It is settled law that power of judicial review would not be exercised by the Writ Court so as to assess the merit of any decision but would remain confined to the decision making process. In doing so, if it is found that the decision making process is vitiated by total arbitrariness and lack of transparency, then such a decision cannot be countenanced by the Court. In the present case, as noted above, the price bids have been evaluated by applying such criteria which was not only evolved after the opening of the bids but the same is also found to be totally irrational. By applying such un-disclosed and irrational evaluation criteria, the tenders quoting the price three times higher than the respondent No 7 had been rejected thereby resulting into heavy financial loss to the Board. The settlement of the truck stand in favour of the respondent No 7 is found to be based on a bid WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 18 of 21 evaluation process which was totally arbitrary and non-transparent. As such, the order of settlement dated 31-03-2017 is held to be un- sustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
30. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of relief that can be granted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. N. Dutta learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that since the petitioner is not the highest bidder hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued for awarding the settlement of the truck stand in his favour. However, if this court finds the bid evaluation process on the basis of which the impugned order of settlement has been issued in favour to the private respondent is bad in law, then the entire process be set aside and the respondent No 5 be directed to issue a fresh NIT. Untill such time a new lessee is appointed the respondent No 5 be directed to operate the truck stand.
31. Mr. Doloi, on the other hand, has submitted that issuance of a fresh NIT will be a time consuming process. Since, the respondent no 5 does not have the resources to run the Truck Stand on its own hence,the present arrangement need not be disturbed by this court. Mr. Chakraborty has also made his submissions on the similar lines.
32. This court has observed that the process adopted by the respondent no 5 upto to the stage of opening the bids and preparation of the Comparative Statement has been done by following the due process of law. The problem arose at the stage of WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 19 of 21 evaluation of the price bids by the applying the bid evaluation criteria evolved in the meeting held on 29-03-2017. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and taking note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the following observations and directions :-
A. The respondent no. 6 would constitute a five member Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) for the purpose of fresh evaluation of the bids submitted for settlement of the "Truck Stand".
B. In the light of the observations made here-in-before, the TEC will evaluate the bids by following the evaluation criteria notified in the Tender Document/ NIT with due regard to the provisions of the relevant Rules.
C. On the Basis of such bid evaluation, the successful tenderer will be selected for awarding the settlement following which fresh order of settlement will be issued.
D. The TEC will record reasons for selecting the successful bidder and such proceeding will be minuted.
E. The entire process, as directed by this court, will be completed within 10 (ten) days from today.
F. Untill such time fresh order of settlement is made in favour of the successful bidder, the respondent No 5 will be at liberty to make interim arrangement for collecting tolls/ parking fees in respect of the Truck Stand.WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 20 of 21
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above with a cost of Rs 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent No 5 .
Records be returned forthwith.
JUDGE T U Choudhury WP(C) No.2268/2017 Page 21 of 21