IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.P. NAOLEKAR AND RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Bikash Bora – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent
W.A. No. 555 of 2002
Decided On: 11.03.2003
TENDER - Settlement of Weekly Market - Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committee in Assam - W.A. No. 195/2002 in WP(C) No. 6271/2001 - Md. Jabed Ali v. State of Assam and Ors. (2002) 2 GLR 636 - Monarch Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 287
Fact of the Case:
The Executive Officer floated a tender for settlement of Kampur Weekly Market. The market was initially settled with one petitioner, but later the settlement was directed to be made with another petitioner. The latter's settlement was challenged, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining that the submission of essential documents specified in the tender notice is a requirement for a valid tender, and the non-compliance of such conditions cannot be treated as mere technicalities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the non-submission of essential documents along with the tender papers could be considered a mere formality or an irregularity that would result in the rejection of the tender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the submission of essential documents specified in the tender notice is a requirement for a valid tender, and the non-compliance of such conditions cannot be treated as mere technicalities.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. The necessary facts, in brief, are that the Execute Officer, Kampur Town Committee floated tender for settlement of Kampur Weekly Market. The present respondent No. 4 Shri Dhiren Choudhury, petitioner in WP(C) No. 4430/2002 alongwith the present appellant Shri Bikash Bora, petitioner in WP (C) No. 4191/2002, and other persons submitted tender. The offer of the respondent Shri Dhiren Choudhury was accepted and the market was settled with him with effect from 1st July, 2002. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the Executive Officer. The High Court has passed an order on 23.7.2002 whereunder the settlement of the market was directed to be kept in abeyance and as a consequence thereof permitted the Executive Officer to manage the Weekly Market. The Director of Municipal Administration, Assam later on vide order dated 4.7.2002 directed that the settlement of the Weekly Market be made with the present appellant in place of the respondent No. 4 at his rate of Rs. 69,999. This order was challenged by the present respondent No. 4 in the above writ petition WP(C) No. 4403/02.
2. The reason given by the Director for settlement of the market in favour of Shri Bikash Bora is as under :
"The Executive Officer, Kampur Town Committee has submitted a detailed report to this Directorate vide his letter No. KNS. 3/2001-2001/ 14-16 dated 27.6.2002. The above mentioned report says the following:
(1) Notice inviting tender for settlement of the Weekly Market for the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003 was issued by the Executive Officer.
(2) 7 (Seven) tenders were received and the highest rate (Rs. 69,999) was offered by Shri Bikash Bora.
(3) The Town Committee authorities did not accept the highest rate offered by Bikash Bora on the ground of his incomplete tender papers for non-furnishing the 'No Loan Certificate' and consent of co-Pattadars in respect of the joint Patta land offered as security.
(4) Provisional settlement was made in favour of Shri Dhiren Choudhury, the second highest rate offered at Rs. 69,222.
Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committee in Assam as amended by Assam Municipal (Amendment) Rules, 1987 provides for settlement of markets by tender subject to observance of rules and procedure for inviting tenders. Normally the highest rate is accepted in tender sale unless there are appropriate reasons not to accept the highest rate and the reasons shall be recorded in writing by the authority concerned. In the present case the Town Committee authorities have shown the reasons as stated at (3) above.
In this connection Shri Bikash Bora has stated in his petition dated 24.6.2002 that he is an educated youth and dependent on his father Shri Bhadra Kanta Bora, as such, he has furnished the required certificate and affidavit in the name of his father. On verification, it appears that Shri Bikash Bora has furnished certificate from Bakijai Officer, Nagaon and Secretary, Kampur Samabai Samity issued in the name of his father Shri Bhadra Kanta Bora and an affidavit sworn in by Shri Bhadra Kanta Bora standing guarantor with his 8 Bighas of lands.
Taking into consideration the above facts and rejection of the case of the offerer of the highest rate Shri Bikash Bora on the ground of technicalities does not appear to be based on merit. In an identical case (W.A. No. 195/2002 in WP(C) No. 6271/2001 the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has observed vide order dated 13.5.2002 as follows : "The object of settlement of markets and other things by an authority by way of tender or bid is to get maximum revenue. If the highest bidder is otherwise alright, he should not be thrown out due to hyper technicality."
3. Thus, the market was settled in favour of Shri Bikash Bora, inspite of his non-compliance of the tender notice conditions. This order of settlement of the market in favour of Bikash Bora dated 4.7.2002 was set aside by the learned Single J
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.