Gauhati High Court
Ruli Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 28 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GAU 270
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010047572021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1943/2021
RULI AHMED
R/O. NAMSIM HOUSING COMPLEX, NILOMANI PHUKAN PATH, CHRISTIAN
BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
TRANSPORT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DIRECTOR
INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 28.05.2021 The Court proceedings have been conducted through video-conference.
2. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department.
3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was given on lease a vessel namely, "Pontoon Ding-Dinga" initially for a period of 3 (three) years and subsequently for 15 (fifteen) years and the term of lease is going to expire on 31.05.2021.
4. The grievance of the petitioner raised before this Court is that during this process the petitioner had to invest a huge amount running into about 86 lakhs for undertaking major structural repairing works to make the said vessel floating and functional, which according to the petitioner, is part of the maintenance as according to the petitioner it would be the responsibility of the petitioner to keep it floating and in good condition as a lessee. Though the petitioner was expecting that the lease period would be extended further, contrary to his expectation the authorities decided not to extend it. It has been submitted that in such an event, the petitioner unless he be reimbursed with the said cost will incur a huge loss as the petitioner is yet to recoup her investment by way of maintenance costs and as such, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for extending the lease term.
6. On the other hand, this prayer has been objected by Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, contending that the petitioner was awarded the said contract to run and manage the said vessel without floating any tender and the Government has now decided to lease the same by floating a public tender to get higher public revenue and no interim order may be passed at this stage which will come in the way of the authorities to float a public tender.
7. Ld. Counsel for the State has submitted that the Government has already taken the decision in principle to float the tender. However, the tender could not be floated till now because of the Covid-19 situation.
Page No.# 3/3 It has accordingly been prayed that no order be passed for stay of any tender process which the authorities are contemplating to initiate.
8. Mr. Choudhury, Ld. Senior Counsel, however, clarifies that as on today the petitioner is not making any prayer for stay of any such proposed tender process as the same has not been the issued. However, he submits that at least the petitioner may be allowed to continue with the business as no new person has yet been appointed so far.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. This Court, of course, at this stage is not passing any stay order to prevent the authorities from floating any tender as being planned by the authorities.
However, since the tender is yet to be floated, in the meantime, the petitioner may be allowed to continue to operate the said vessel even after 31.05.2021 on the same earlier terms and conditions until further order.
11. List the matter after 4 (four) weeks.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant