Gauhati High Court
Sri Puneshwar Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010025622022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/59/2022
SRI PUNESHWAR SAIKIA
S/O INDRESHWAR SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF KAROIATI, PO AND PS BOKAKHAT, DIST GOLAGHAT,
ASSAM, 785612
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI 06
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI06
3:THE GOLAGHAT ZILLA PARISHAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOLAGHAT DISTRICT CIRCLE
ASSAM
5:THE GOLAGHAT WEST ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
GOLAGHAT ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY
Page No.# 2/5
BOKAKHAT
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
6:SRI DEBAJIT HAZARIKA
S/O LATE SUREN HAZARIKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BONGALIGAON
PO BORJURI
BOKAKHAT
GOLAGHAT
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P J DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Order 14.02.2022 Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment & order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4036/2021.
The writ appellant before this Court was one of the bidders for Sapjuri Weekly Market under the territorial jurisdiction of Northeast Kaziranga Gaon Panchayat, District Golaghat. Undoubtedly, the appellant was the third highest bidder in the process. The bids quoted by the bidders were as under:
Page No.# 3/5 Sl. No. Bidder number Bid value offered 1 Bidder no.1 Rs. 23,51,000/-
2 Bidder no.2 [the petitioner] Rs. 15,51,000/- 3 Bidder no.3 [the respondent no.6] Rs. 15,00,000/- 4 Bidder no.4 Rs. 13,85,451/-
5 Bidder no.5 Rs. 12,71,951/-
6 Bidder no.6 Rs. 11,76,121/-
7 Bidder no.7 Rs. 9,78,121/-
8 Bidder no.8 Rs. 9,30,101/-
9. Bidder no.9 Rs. 8,88,000/-
10 Bidder no.10 Rs. 6,81,000/-
11 Bidder no.11 Rs. 6,10,101/-
The appellant who was the respondent No.6 in the writ petition, had quoted a bid amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The writ petitioner who was the second highest bidder, had quoted Rs. 15,51,000/-. The highest bidder had quoted an amount of Rs. 23,51,000/-.
The learned Single Judge after hearing all the parties had come to the conclusion that the Zilla Parishad does have the power to give settlement to any other bidder, i.e. other than the one who has given the highest bid, provided prior approval of the State Government is obtained as provided under Rule 47[10] of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002. Rule 47[10] of the said Rules reads as under:
"47[10] - The tender of highest bidder shall be accepted. Acceptance of tender other than the highest bid shall require the "Government" prior and formal approval.".
Evidently, while giving settlement to the third highest bidder this condition Page No.# 4/5 has not been complied with which is mandatory in nature. On this ground, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the following directions :
"18. In view of the discussion made above and the reasons assigned therein, more particularly, in view of violation of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 on the part of the General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, the process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 6 is found to be vitiated one due to taking into account irrelevant factors in the decision making process and non-compliance of the statutory prescription contained in Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 and the same is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.
19. Consequently, the Zilla Parishad is directed to revisit the matter of settlement once again on the basis of the records containing the tender documents of the participating valid bidders and to arrive at a decision on the settlement of Sapjuri Weekly Market for the subsequent period up to 30.06.2022, as indicated in the Tender Notice dated 06.05.2021, in compliance of Rule 47[10] Rules, 2002. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed on or before 15.02.2022.
20. At this stage, Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the respondent no. 6 has already deposited the installment amount to operate the market upto 28.02.2022 and the respondent no. 6 is presently operating the market. Thus, he may be allowed to operate the market till 28.02.2022.
21. In view of the directions given above, the respondent no. 6 may be permitted to operate the market up to 15.02.2022 and if after that, any excess amount of installment for the period from 16.02.2022 is found to be refunded to the respondent no. 6 due to deposit already made by him, the same shall be refunded by the respondent authorities forthwith thereafter.
22. With the observations made and directions given above, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost."
Page No.# 5/5 We find absolutely no scope to interfere in the matter. A mandatory condition has been violated by the Zilla Parishad. Hence, the settlement made in favour of the appellant is clearly in violation of that condition. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed.
Let the respondents including the Zilla Parishad comply with the directions given by the learned Single Judge and proceed accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant