Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 10 Ors on 19 February, 2024
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010031462024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/768/2024
JAGADISH CH BRAHMA AND 4 ORS
S/O NEHRU BRAHMA RESIDENT OF GAMBHIKARAKHATA PART I, PO AND
PS KAZIGAON, DIST KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM 783339
2: BISWAJIT BRAHMA
S/O LATE BINOD BRAHMA
RESIDENT OF KOKRAJHAR WARD NO. 4
PO AND PS KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM 783370
3: SAHADEV BRAHMA
S/O LATE BABURAM BRAHMA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO BASHBARI
DIST KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM 783337
4: ABUL SK
S/O LATE RAHAM ALI SK
RESIDENT OF KHORAGHAT
PO AND PS BAGRIBARI
DIST KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM 783349
5: MAHADEV BRAHMA
S/O LATE DWARENDRA NATH BRAHMA
RESIDENT OF THAISOGURI
PO GONGIA
PS KACHUGAON
DIST KOKRAJHAR
Page No.# 2/6
BTC
ASSAM 78335
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GHY 6
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 37
3:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC)
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 783370
4:THE SECRETARY
BTC KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 783370
5:THE ADDLL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST -CUM-
COUNCIL HEAD OF DEPARTMENT (CHD)
FOREST
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN - 783370
6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
PARBATJHORA DIVISION
SUPERIGHAT
KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN 783339
7:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
KHORAGHAT RANGE OFFICE
KHORAGHAT
BAGRIBARI
KOKRAJHAR
BTC
Page No.# 3/6
ASSAM
PIN - 783349
8:THE SECRETARY
STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC) AND STATE
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
(SEIAA)
ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDUM
GHY 21
9:THE DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING
ASSAM
BHU-BIGYAN BHAWAN
DAKHINGAON
KAHILIPARA
GHY 19.
10:MANOJ NARZARY
S/O. DAMON NARZARY
VILL. SHYAMTHAIBARI
P.O. KHUNGRING
P.S. RUNIKHATA
DIST. CHIRANG
BTC
ASSAM
PIN NO. 783375
11:THE BODOSA NEWS PAPER
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR
R/O. WARD NO. 5
MAIBONG NWGWR
J.D. ROAD
P.O. KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN 78337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
Page No.# 4/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
19.02.2024
1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appears for the caveator/respondent No.10 and submits that he has submitted vakalatnama today.
3. Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent No.10 had participated in the Tender dated 29.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.6, for granting mining contract in respect of various sand/gravel mahals situated under the Parbatjhora Forest Division of Kokrajhar district, including the Jalabila Mahal, for a period of 7 years.
4. The petitioners had submitted high tender bids. In respect of the respondent No.10 herein, he had submitted his bid amount of Rs.1,21,22,000/-. However, the Tender Notice dated 29.11.2021 was cancelled and a fresh Tender Notice dated 05.12.2023 was issued surreptitiously. As such, the petitioner could not participate in the Tender Notice dated 05.12.2023, as he did not know about it.
5. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State respondents were to issue the tender Notice in terms of Rule 254 of the Assam Finance Rules, 1939, whereby the advertisements were to be issued in the Government gazette or the press or by public notice in English and in the vernacular languages. The petitioners' counsel submits that the subsequent NIT Page No.# 5/6 was issued in the Bodosa Newspaper, which is a local daily newspaper published in Kokrajhar, covering small area.
6. Mr. Das submits that only 3 persons took part in the Tender Notice dated 05.12.2023 and the Jalabila Mahal was settled with the respondent No.10, on his bid amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. He submits that the government, by way of the present action, is going to lose around nearly Rs.1 Crore, as the respondent No.10 had given his bid amount for the same Jalabila Mahal @Rs.1,21,22,000/- crores in pursuant to the earlier Tender Notice dated 29.11.2021.
In the earlier NIT dated 29.11.2021, the reserved price fixed by the State respondents was Rs.4,20,000/- and in the next NIT dated 05.12.2023, the reserved price was Rs.6,42,000/-.
7. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned for the caveator/respondent No.10 submits that there is no requirement for a tender notice to be published in more than one newspaper. He further submits that e-tender notice need not be issued. He submits that no rule has been violated, while publishing the tender notice or selecting the tenderer. He also submits that the bids of 3 tenderers were valid in pursuant to the subsequent Tender Notice dated 05.12.2023 and the respondent No.10, who was the highest bidder at Rs.6,50,000/-, was fairly selected as the successful bidder.
8. Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the BTC submits that he needs instructions. He however, submits that the earlier tender notice had been cancelled due to the exorbitant rates/bids submitted by the tenderers.
9. On considering the fact that the respondent No.10 had made a bid for the Page No.# 6/6 same mahal in pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 29.11.2021 @Rs.1,21,22,000/- and has now been settled with the mahal @Rs.6,50,000/-, this Court is of the view that till the next date, the respondents should not settle the Jalabila Mahal with any of the bidders in pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 05.12.2023. Though approval has apparently been given in favour of the respondent No.10 by the BTC for settlement of the Mahal, no further action should be taken and no settlement order or letter of intent should be issued to the respondent No.10 till the next date.
10. On the prayer of the counsel for the respondent No.10, list the matter on 21.02.2023.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant