Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. After evaluation of respective bids, recommendation was made by the DFO for issuing Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No.6 in both the writ petitions. The matter having reached the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest force, Assam (hereinafter referred to as 'PCCF & HoFF'), a decision was made for putting both the Mahals to re- sale on grounds that many documents furnished by the tenderer were not in his favour and also that the financial capability of the highest tenderer was negligible as compared to the amount offered.

(iii) The offer of the Respondent No.6 having been duly accepted by the DFO as well as by the Conservator of Forest and the Additional PCCF as per provisions under Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as such the same becomes a contract enforceable in law. The PCCF was without any right to discard the contract by notifying a re-

sale of the Mahals.

(iv) Rejection of the tender of the Respondent No.6 having regard to his Financial Soundness Certificate and putting the Mahal to re-sale is not tenable, inasmuch as, in respect of settlements made for Bardanga area, Naukhanda and Bandarkhowa, the same PCCF had issued Letters of Intent to tenderers who had not furnished Financial Soundness Certificate along with their tenders and granting liberty to submit additional documents in support of their financial soundness.

17. Rule 3 read with Rule 2 (e) of the AMMC Rules, 2013 leaves no room for doubt that, having regard to the facts of the instant cases, the PCCF & HoFF is the competent authority to grant a mining lease or a mining contract or permit or any other concession or licence or transit pass etc. or to take other actions under the Rules. Accordingly, the PCCF & HoFF was within his domain to consider and reverse the recommendation made by the DFO for granting settlement in favour of M/s D & J Suppliers and M/s Trio Stoney Mart respectively and for putting both the Mahals to re-sale. Under Rule 68(2) of the AMMC Rules, 2013, an appeal against the order of the PCCF & HoFF lies before the Government in the Department of Environment and Forest in respect of minerals under Schedule 'Y', as in the instant case. As an appellate authority the State Government is conferred with the powers to reach its own decision, reverse the order of the PCCF & HoFF and issue directions to the PCCF & HoFF to act accordingly. To this limited extent the appellate orders, if discharged by the State Government, with directions to the PCCF & HoFF to issue Letter of Intent to the Respondent No.6 in both the cases cannot be faulted. In other words, the State Government in exercise of its statutory power, functions and duties under Rule 68(2) can direct the competent authority i.e. the PCCF & HoFF to proceed accordingly.

29. In the backdrop of the discussions and findings above, the orders dated 21.7.2014 and 23.7.2014 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department, cannot stand the scrutiny of law and warrants interference. Accordingly, the said orders dated 21.7.2014 and 23.7.2014 and all consequential orders thereon are set aside with direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force (PCCF & HoFF) to take such steps for putting the Kalain Minor Mineral Unit No.1 and the Kalain Minor Mineral Unit No.2 to re-sale. The PCCF & HoFF shall ensure that the exercise for issuing a fresh Re-Sale Notice in respect of the aforesaid Units together with completing the process and awarding the contract to suitable bidder is completed within an outer limit period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order before the PCCF & HoFF for his doing the needful in terms of the directions above.