Gauhati High Court
Inamul Haque vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 6 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 332 (GAU), AIRONLINE 2019 GAU 646
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010250472014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 490/2014
1:INAMUL HAQUE
S/O LT. AZMAL HUSSAIN KAZI R/O BEGPAR, WARD NO. 2,MANGALDAI
TOWN, P.O. and P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM PIN- 784125.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
FOREST DEPARTMETN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
AND HEAD FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
REHABARI
GUWAHATI- 781008.
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION
RANGIA.
4:SHRI RAJIB KUMAR DEKA
S/O SHRI KAMALA DEKA
R/O WARD NO.3
MANGALDAI TOWN
P.O. and P.S. MANGANDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784125
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.F AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.Y DOLOIR- 1-3
Page No.# 2/13
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
JUDGMENT
Date : 06-03-2019 Heard Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest department, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2) By issuing Sale notice dated 29.08.2013, the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia (DFO for short) (i.e. respondent No.3) had invited tender for granting mining contract for collection of boulder, stone, sand, sand gravel, gravel, earth/ silt of various mining areas including the mining contract area called NKD-M-14 of Mangaldai River for 7 years. For the said mining area, 6 (six) bidders had submitted their tender. On the opening of tender, the DFO had prepared a comparative statement and the petitioner was found to be second highest bidder with his offer of Rs.17,17,786/-.
3) It is projected that at the time of opening of the tender, the petitioner had observed certain discrepancies in the bid submitted by the private respondent No.4. Hence, on 23.10.2013, the petitioner had submitted his written objection before the DFO and prayed for rejection of the tender of the respondent No.4 on the ground that the respondent No.4 had not submitted the necessary documents like (i) Financial Soundness Certificate from Deputy Commissioner, Darrang ('FSC' for short), and (ii) TIN certificate from Sale Tax Department. Thereafter, on 20.12.2013, the petitioner had submitted a similar petition before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force (respondent No.2), praying for cancellation of tender submitted by the respondent No.4. However, vide Letter No. FG.24/NKD-B-14. Mangaldai River/2013-20 dated 20.12.2013, the respondent No.2 had directed the respondent No.3 to issue provisional Letter of Intent ('LoI' for short) in respect of mining contract area, i.e., NKD-4-14 [(sic.) should have been NKD-M-14 of Mangaldai River ] Page No.# 3/13 to respondent No.4, subject to production of FSC within 26.12.2013 before issuing LoI. As per RTI information provided to the petitioner, it was disclosed that vide impugned letter No. B/NHL/5135/38 dated 27.12.2013, the respondent No.3 had issued the Provisional LoI to the respondent No.4 in respect of NKD-D-14 Mining Contract area of Mangaldai River [ (sic.) should have been NKD-M-14 Mining Contract Area], by granting further 7 (seven) days' time to the respondent No.4 to produce the additional documents as mentioned in the letter of respondent No.2.
4) By his RTI application dated 03.01.2014, the petitioner sought for information from the Public Information Officer (PIO for short), Office of respondent No.2 as well as from the PIO, Office of the DFO (respondent No.3). However, it is projected that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the requisite documents were not furnished to the petitioner.
5) It is projected in the writ petition that till 08.01.2014, the petitioner had not submitted the additional documents as sought for by the respondents. Hence, on 09.01.2014, the petitioner made a request to the respondent No.2 to issue LOI in favour of the petitioner on failure of the respondent No.4 to submit the required additional documents, which was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 for consideration. It is also stated that later on, the respondent No.4 had submitted the additional documents before the respondent No.2 in the 3rd week of January 2014 and it is projected that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent No.3 did not issue any order for obtaining Environment Impact Assessment (EIA for short) clearance from the competent authority and it is also projected that the respondent No.4 had not deposited any earnest money before the respondent No.3 till the date of filing of the writ petition. Hence, challenging the issuance of LoI to the respondent No.4, the present writ petition has been filed.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to clause 12(d) of the Sale notice dated 29.08.2013, wherein it is prescribed that " a financial soundness certificate from the concerning DC/ SDO ascertaining the financial capability to operate the mining deals/ contract" must to be accompanied with the tender paper. The last date of submission Page No.# 4/13 of tender was 19.09.2013, which was extended upto 27.09.2013. But in violation of the said mandatory tender clause, the petitioner was permitted to produce the VAT registration certificate and the FSC from the Deputy Commissioner's office much beyond the time allowed in the tender.
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by his two complaints dated 23.10.2013 and 20.12.2013, the petitioner had informed the respondents No.2 and 3 that the tender submitted by the respondent No.4 was deficient for non-furnishing of FSC from the Deputy Commissioner and Certificate of Registration under Assam Value added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act for short). However, the respondents No.2 and 3 had permitted the respondent No.4 to furnish documents after the time of submission of tender was over, thereby permitting the respondent No.4 to fill up the lacuna in his tender. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 had furnished additional documents to the respondent No.3 by his forwarding letter dated 29.10.2013, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the respondent No.3 under Sl. No. 1812 dated 31.10.2013. In this regard, it is submitted that in para-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 03.08.2017, the respondent No.3 had made an intentional, deliberate and false statement to the effect that out of 6 tender papers, 5 tender papers were found to be regular, thereby falsely projecting as if there was no defect in the tender submitted by the respondent No.4.
8) By referring to the comparative statement available on record [ part of Annexure-J (pp.16) of the affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioner on 14.08.2017 ], it is submitted that the respondent No.3 had recorded under Column 7 and 9 therein that the respondent No.4 had submitted AGST, Pan/ TIN etc., which was apparently a false entry in the comparative statement because as per documents annexed as Annexure-J of affidavit- in- reply dated 14.08.2017, it would be apparent the VAT registration certificate of the petitioner was issued only on 23.10.2013, with the effective date of registration as 21.10.2013. Hence, it is submitted that the comparative statement was incorrect and unreliable. Moreover, it is submitted that on and from the date of opening of the tender in question, the respondents No.2 and 3 had shown undue favour to the respondent No.4, because despite the requisite documents in support of the bid had not been filed, the respondent No.3 had not mentioned Page No.# 5/13 in his recommendation that the tender of the respondent No.4 was irregular. It is submitted that from these facts, it would be clear that intentional and deliberate false statements were made by Sri Bankim Sharma, DFO, North Kamrup Division, Rangia in para-6 of the affidavit- in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 that the tender of the respondent No.4 was regular.
9) By referring to the statements made in affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that the tender papers/ bid was opened on 30.09.2013, it is submitted that since then, the Forest officials were sitting over the matter for more than 3 months to enable the respondent No.4 to obtain and then submit the deficient documents and only thereafter, the provisional LoI was issued on 20.12.2013.
10) It is further submitted that at every stage, the officers of the Forest department had done window dressing to portray a false and fabricated picture before this Court and documents were entered on record on a back date and in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the contents of the letter under Memo No. FG.24/NKD-B-14/ Mangaldai River/2013-20 dated 20.12.2013, by which the respondent No.2 had directed the respondent No.3, to ask the respondent No.4 to produce FSC within 26.12.2013 before issuing LoI.
11) The petitioner has also referred to the impugned LoI under No. B/MHL/5135- 38 dated 27.12.2013, issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4, by which LoI was issued in respect of Mining Contract Area NKD-D-14, although the tender was for Mining Contract Area NKD-M-14. The petitioner- in- person has highlighted that even as on 27.10.2013, the respondent No.2 had made a request to the respondent No.4 to produce the additional documents as mentioned in the letter dated 20.12.2013 under reference therein. Accordingly, it is submitted that the records pertaining to the Officer of the DFO were dressed up and documents were inserted in the file on back date, because if the respondent No.4 had actually submitted the TIN document and the FSC to the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 23.10.2013, the respondent No.3, being a responsible forest departmental official, would never have requested the respondent No.4 to furnish the same documents Page No.# 6/13 once again. Hence, it is submitted that the FSC issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai under the signature of Extra Assistant Commissioner, but without bearing any date. Hence, it is submitted that as the Final LoI was issued on 01.02.2014, this indicated that the respondent No.4 must have completed all codal formalities by producing the deficient documents etc., sometime prior to the date of issuance of Final LoI. Accordingly, it is submitted that the award of contract to the respondent No.4 be set aside by directing the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to award the contract to the petitioner.
12) Opposing this writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General of the State has submitted that the FSC was not mandatory or essential as this was only an aid to the State to assess the financial capability of the person to whom the contract would be awarded, but in the present case in hand, the petitioner had submitted a certificate of soundness issued by Axis Bank, such certificate was equally acceptable to the authorities. It is further submitted that it was not one of the conditions of the tender that if the documents referred to in clause-12 of the NIT was not furnished, the tender would be rejected and, as such, it is submitted that by permitting the respondent No.4 to submit the deficient documents, no illegality was committed which would vitiate the tender process. Further it is submitted that the revenue earning from the tender of the respondent No.4 was higher than the offer made in the tender submitted by the petitioner. Thus, the acceptance of the tender of the respondent No.4 was in public interest. In support of the submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State has relied on the case of G.J. Fernandes Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 488.
13) The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the FSC is not mandatory and in this regard it is submitted that the said point has been well settled by this Court in the case of Khoi Singnar Vs. State of Assam & Ors, (1983) 1 GLR 410 . It is further submitted that in this case the subject of the tender was 'extraction of silt' from the Mining Contract Area- NKD-M-14 of Mangaldai River and therefore, such sale was conducted under the Assam Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2013 which provided for appellate provision under Rule 68 thereof and therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner be relegated to file an appeal if he is aggrieved by issuance of the mining contract in question to the Page No.# 7/13 petitioner, which is the appropriate, alternative and efficacious remedy. In this regard by relying on the case of Jitu Hazarika Vs. State of Assam & Ors ., WP (C) 1771/2014, disposed of by this Court by order dated 04.04.2014, it is submitted that in the said case, this Court had permitted the appellate authority under the said 2013 Rules to dispose of the appeal preferred in connection with the issuance of LoI. Reliance is also placed on the case of Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 337. It is also submitted that as per the provisions of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 Assam Value Added Tax, 2003 and Rules framed thereunder, it was provided that a dealer liable to pay tax shall apply for registration within 30 days from the date on which he is first liable to pay such tax and as such, it is submitted that as on the date of issuance of the provisional LoI on 27.12.2013 and the Final LOI on 01.02.2014, as the petitioner was previously not dealing in any taxable goods, he was not required to have a Certificate of Registration under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Rules framed thereunder and therefore, it is submitted that the issuance of LoI in favour of the respondent No.4 could not be said to be fatal only for non-production of the TIN certificate. By referring to the case Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 517, it is submitted that in the present case in hand, there was no loss of money to the public exchequer and therefore, as public interest had not suffered, this Court may not interfere in the matter by exercising the power of judicial review even if there appears to be a procedural aberration or error in assessment or even if prejudice to a tenderer is made out.
14) In the present case in hand, it is seen that as per the comparative statement prepared at the time of opening of the tender, against column No. 6, regarding FSC, the petitioner is stated to have provided the document, but the respondent No. 4 had not submitted the document. In respect of column No. 9 relating to PAN/TIN, it is mentioned therein that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 had provided the document. The recommendation by the respondent No.3 was as follows:-
"1. Total 6(six) nos. of tender paper received from the Tenderers. The 1 st highest bidder of Rs.18,88,888.88 (Eighteen lakh eighty eight thousand eight hundred eighty eight & paise eighty eight) only has been offered by Sri Rajib Kr. Deka. He has submitted all documents along with bank FSC except FSC from Page No.# 8/13 DC/SDO(C). Hence, the no. NKD-M-14 mining contract area of Mangaldoi River may kindly be settled with him at offer of Rs.18,88,888.88 only, subject to submission of FSC issued from DC/SDO(C) as mentioned in the sale notice, if deem fit & proper.
2. The 2nd highest bid of Rs.17,17,786.00 (Seventeen lakh seventeen thousand seven hundred eighty six) only has been offered by Sri Inamul Haque. His tender is regular.
3. The 3rd highest bid of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Fifteen lakh) only has been offered by Sri Hari Das. He has not submitted any documents along with the tender form. His tender is irregular."
15) From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3, it is reflected that the bid was opened on 13.09.2013, but there is no explanation as to why the DFO (respondent No.3) had forwarded the comparative statement to the Chief Conservator of Forest Central, Guwahati on 18.10.2013 i.e. after more than a month. Moreover, admittedly the respondent No.4 had not submitted Tin documents, therefore, unless there was some connivance between the respondent No.3 and 4, there was no reason for the respondent No.3 to make an incorrect entry in the Comparative Statement so as to project before the Chief Conservator of Forest Central, Guwahati that the respondent No.4 had submitted the TIN documents along with his bid. From the letter dated 23.10.2013 by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3, which is relied upon by all the parties, the respondent No.4 had informed the respondent No.3 that along with his tender, the financial soundness certificate and TIN document could not be submitted due to his wife's illness. On the orders of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel of the Forest Department, assisting the learned Addl. Advocate General of the State has produced the records contained in two files, which reveal that there are two separate letters dated 23.10.2013 by the respondent No.4 on record. One such letter is at page 66 of file of DF relating to NKD-M-14 (Mangaldai River), which does not contain any enclosure or acknowledgement of its receipt by the office of the respondent No.3. Another similarity worded letter dated 23.10.2013 by the respondent No.4 is at page 20 of the said file, which is shown to be received by someone under his initial signature of Page No.# 9/13 23.10.2013 where '3' was over written to make it '9' and the over written date is shown as 29.10.2013. Under another short initial signature, the same letter is again acknowledged to be received on 30.10.2013. Later on, the same letter is shown to be received under receipt number 1812 dated 31.10.2013 under the round rubber stamp of DFO (respondent No.3), which is accompanied by (i) the FSC (without bearing any date) under the signature of extra Assistant Commissioner, for Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai, and (ii) Certificate of Registration dated 21.10.2013 (issued on 23.10.2013), under Assam VAT Rules. Therefore, referring to the comparative statement, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no way that a TIN certificate issued on 23.10.2013 could have been submitted by the respondent No.4 along with his tender. Thus, the Comparative Statement prepared by the respondent No.3 is found to be vitiated by deliberate false and/or incorrect particulars.
16) In the present case, assuming that the financial soundness certificate and TIN registration certificate were both non-essential and not-mandatory, then all that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were required to do is to take a conscious decision to accept the bid of the respondent No.4 by holding those two documents to be non-essential or not- mandatory. Therefore, it was not necessary for the respondent No.3 to make a false or incorrect entry in the Comparative Statement and forward it to the Chief Conservator of Forest Central, Guwahati, so as to make it appear that the TIN documents was provided by the respondent No.4 along with his bid. The elaborate deception exercised by respondent No.3 to make a wrong entry in the comparative statement to project that the TIN documents were available, and contents of the Final LoI, by which the respondent No.3 had directed to produce the TIN document are sufficient to demonstrate that all throughout the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were of the view that the TIN certificate and FSC by Deputy Commissioner was an essential requirement of the tender.
17) Notwithstanding the hereinbefore mentioned forwarding letter of the respondent No.4 dated 23.10.2013 to the respondent No.3 (page 20 and page 66 of the record), though it is projected as if the respondent No.4 had submitted the FSC by his letter dated 23.10.2013, but it appears from letter No. FG.24/NKD-B-14/ Mangaldai River/ 2013-20 dated 20.12.2013 issued by the PCCF and HOFF (respondent No.2) that the said authority Page No.# 10/13 had directed the respondent No.3 to ask the respondent No.2 to produce FSC within 26.12.2013 before issuing LoI. The said letter dated 20.12.2013 by the respondent No.2 is available at the last page of the records without any page numbering. A copy of the same letter is also filed as Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-reply submitted by the petitioner on 07.09.2015. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 20.12.2013, the DFO (respondent No.3) had issued the Provisional LoI to the respondent No.4 on 27.12.2013, by directing him to produce the additional documents as mentioned in the above referred letter dated 20.12.2013. Therefore, it is apparent that till the impugned provisional LOI was issued on 27.12.2013, the respondent No.3 was still writing to the respondent No.4 to submit additional documents. Surprisingly, the letter dated 20.12.2013 by respondent No. 2's does not indicate that a copy of the said letter was marked to the respondent No.4. A reading of the Provisional LoI dated 27.12.2013 shows that there is no mention therein as to which document was to be produced by the respondent No.4. Therefore, the contents of the aforesaid two letters dated 20.12.2013 and 27.12.2013 referred above, is sufficient for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that as on the said two dates, i.e. 20.12.2013 and 27.12.2013, the copies of FSC and TIN document did not exist in the records of respondent No.2 and 3, otherwise the respondent No.3, which is otherwise a very responsible post, would never have demanded the same set of documents again on 27.12.2013 while issuing LoI, which is shown to have been received in his office vide letter dated 23.10.2013 under serial No. 1812 dated 31.10.2013. Thus, the indelible impression gathered from the chain of events is that the FSC and TIN documents was entered in the records on a back date because after receiving the Final LoI vide letter dated 27.12.2013, there is no letter by respondent No.4 on record, re-submitting the same documents again.
18) Therefore, notwithstanding the decision of this Court in the above referred case of Khoi Singnar (supra), wherein it has been held that FSC is not mandatory, yet the insistence by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, requiring the respondent No.4 to submit such document vide letters dated 20.12.2013 and 27.12.2013, makes it amply clear that the said authorities were proceeding as if the submission of (i) Financial Soundness Certificate (FSC), and (ii) TIN document was one of the essential conditions of tender. Otherwise, the said authorities would have simply proceeded to award the contract to the respondent No.4 Page No.# 11/13 without insisting on the production of (i) FSC from the Deputy Commissioner's Office, and (ii) TIN document. It also demonstrates that the said authorities did not consider the FSC issued by the bank to be a good document so as to award the contract to the respondent No.4 on its basis.
19) Coming to the cases cited by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, on the point of there being alternative, efficacious appellate remedy available and that even if there are procedural aberrations which prejudice the tenderer, Courts ought not to readily interfere in the award of contract, which is in the realm of the concerned authorities. As already discussed above, it is seen that if the admitted case of the respondent No.4 is that he had not submitted the TIN documents while submitting his tender, which is shown in the comparative statement prepared by respondent No.3 to have been submitted along with the bid, but was insisted to be submitted by letter dated 20.12.2013 and 27.012.2013, but seen to have been acknowledged to be received by the respondent No.3 under Sl. No. 1812 dated 30.10.2013. This Court finds that the petitioner has been successfully able to demonstrate that there was some connivance between the respondents No.3 and 4. If the TIN documents or FSC was a non-essential document, there was no bar for the said respondents No.2 and 3 to act bona fide by mentioning in the comparative statement that the TIN and FSC documents was lacking and then to take a conscious decision in public interest to condone the non- submission of those documents. However, as the respondent No.3 had made a deception by making incorrect statement in the comparative statement to project that the respondent No. 4 had produced the TIN documents, the decision making process as well as the decision itself to award the contract to the respondent No.4 has been rendered tainted to give advantage to the respondent No.4. The incorrect statement in the comparative statement discloses the premeditated mind of the respondent No.3, only aimed to take care of the private interest of the respondent No.4, which is not in public interest because the State authorities are required to act fairly. If the respondent No.3 had acted bona fide, and in public interest to get enhanced revenue, all that was required of the said authority was to make correct remarks in the Comparative Statement and give his justification to award the contract to respondent No.4, so that the respondent No.2 could have taken a conscious decision in the matter of Page No.# 12/13 award of contract. Moreover, on examining the role of the respondent No.2, it is seen that in the files of the said authority, the TIN document and FSC document was not available, for which he had directed the respondent No.3 by order dated 20.12.2013 to obtain the same from the respondent No.4, yet, which the comparative statement was sent to him by the respondent No.2, showing TIN documents were available, the respondent No.2 also did not take care to examine the documents accompanying the tender, because had the said tender documents been examined, it would have to come to his notice that the tender submitted by the respondent No. 4 did not contain the TIN documents. As per the contents of file containing tender documents, the bid submitted by respondent No.4 contained (i) photocopy of PAN Card (ii) photocopy of first page of bank pass-book (ii) Financial Soundness Certificate issued by Axis Bank, and (iv) Income-Tax return acknowledgement for the assessment year 2013-14. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the instant case, the steps taken by respondents No.2 and 3 in course of their decision making process appears to be intended to favour the respondent No. 4 and, as such, the decision making process that was adopted is found to be arbitrary, effecting public interest, and allowing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to favour the respondent No.4, although no financial loss was caused to the State exchequer. Thus, under the unique facts of this case, the various cases cited by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 do not appear to help the respondents.
20) The decision making process is found to be discriminatory against the petitioner and therefore, is found to be amenable to judicial review by this Court as for the reasons as already indicated herein before. In this case, the decision making process as well as the decision taken by the respondents No.2 and 3 is found to have failed the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, notwithstanding the alternative remedy of filing an appeal is available under the Assam Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2013 in the opinion of this Court, this is a fit and proper case for not relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy as out of the 7 (seven) year contract/ extraction term, about 5 years have already gone by.
21) Therefore, this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned Provisional LoI Page No.# 13/13 issued by the respondent No.3 vide letter No. B/MHL/5135-38 dated 27.12.2013 in favour of respondent No.4 is hereby set aside and quashed along with all consequential actions taken including issuance of Final LOI in favour of respondent No. 4, which is accordingly ordered.
22) However, as the bid of the petitioner is lower than that of the respondent No.4, in order to avoid revenue loss to the State exchequer, instead of issuing a mandamus to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to award the contract to the petitioner for the remaining period, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent No.2 & 3 are directed to take immediate steps to call for a fresh tender for extraction of silt in respect of No. NKD-M-14 Mining Contract Area of Mangaldai River for the remaining period. It is further provided that for the intervening period, till the new contract is awarded for the remaining period, the Forest Department may carry out the mining operations departmentally, without engaging private contractors.
23) Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
24) The Court Master shall return the two files produced by Mr. S. Biswas, the learned SC, Forest Department.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant