Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Bikash Ch. Regon and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4946, 4975, 5636, 5198 of 2013 and 610 of 2014
Decided On: 03.03.2014
Assam Excise Rules, 1945 – Rule 203 – Determination of viable rate – All the writ petitions challenging the judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue and raising the same basic issue, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. – The basic issue involved in this proceeding is the determination of viable rate in selecting tenderer for settlement of country spirit shops in Lakhimpur District for the term 2013-2016. – Held, Court is therefore, of the opinion that as the tender itself of respondent 4 was liable to be rejected because of lack of particulars as stated hereinabove, no further question arises. – Court do not agree with the observations of the High Court that Rule 206 is not mandatory. – The language of the said Rule is clear and unambiguous. – It not only says that the tenders must be in their required form but also stipulates that the consequence of non-compliance thereto, the consequence being that the tenders not containing all the particulars "shall be liable to be rejected".– In the instant appeal from the impugned order it reveals that settling authority settled the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 2 without verifying the necessary information provided in the tender notice as in the said impugned order it is seen that "shop number at SI. No. 1, 3, 8, 6 and 7 have been approved by the Advisory Committee subject to verification of Bank Account for all". – Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Board of Revenue so far as the same rejects the tender of the petitioner. – Order Accordingly
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
1. All the writ petitions challenging the judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue and raising the same basic issue, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The basic issue involved in this proceeding is the determination of viable rate in selecting tenderer for settlement of country spirit shops in Lakhimpur District for the term 2013-2016.
WP (C)4946/2013
2. In this writ petition, the country spirit shop involved is Hatilung country spirit Shop. Being aggrieved by the settlement made in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender process, the respondent No. 4 challenged the settlement by preferring an appeal being Case No. 7E(L)/2013 in the Assam Board of Revenue. The appeal having been allowed by judgment dated 22.08.2013 on the ground of proper procedure as per the Excise Law having not been followed while making the settlement and also the settlement being against the economic policy of the State Government, the settlement holder, i.e., the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
WP (C) 4975/2013
3. In this writ petition, the country spirit shop involved is Bihpuria Country Spirit Shop No. 4. In this writ petition also the Assam Board of Revenue, vide its judgment dated 22.08.2013, passed in Case No. 24E(L)/2013, having set aside the settlement made in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of proper procedure as per the Excise Law having not been followed while making the settlement and also the settlement being against the economic policy of the State Government, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
WP (C) 5636/2013
4. The challenge in the writ petition is the judgment dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, in Case No. 9E(L)/2013, in respect of settlement of Harmutty (Parbatipur) Country Spirit Shop. Byrne said judgment, the Board of Revenue, while setting aside the settlement made in favour of one Sri Rintu Prasad Saikia on the ground of settlement having not been based on the proper procedure of the Excise Law as well as the same being against the economic policy of the State Government, has ordered for settlement of the said CS shop in favour of the respondent No. 4, who was also an appellant before the Board of Revenue vide Appeal Case No. 1E(L)/2013. Be it stated here that by the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2013, altogether three appeals, namely, Case No. 1E(L)/13(Dipanjal Hazarika v. Rintu Prasad Saikia); Case No. 8E(L)/13 (Dipen Hazarika v. Rintu Prasad Saikia) and Case No. 9E(L)/13 (Diganta Gohain v. Rintu Prasad Saikia), have been disposed of. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the observations made against him in the said judgment.
WP (C) 5198/2013
5. This writ petition is against the aforesaid common judgment, dated 19.08.2013, of the Assam Board of Revenue passed in respect of No. 3 Country Spirit Shop at Harmutty (Parbatipur). The settlement made in favour of the petitioner was challenged in the aforesaid three appeals. What is the outcome thereof has been noted above.
WP (C) 610/2014
6. As noted above, the petitioner was the appellant before the Assam Board of Revenue. His appeal against the settlement made in favour of Sri Rintu Prasad Saikia (i.e., the petitioner in WP (C) 5198/2013), was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2013. Being aggrieved by the findings recorded therein against the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, both official and private, at length. I have also perused the entire materials on record. As noted above, the bask point for determination is the viable rate for settlement of country spirit shops involved in this proceeding. The other incidental issues raised in these writ petitions will be dealt with separately.
8. A Notice
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
