Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Sandip Tindya - Appellant
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 456(AP) and 472(AP) of 2014
Decided On: 18.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: S. Mow, S.K. Deori, T. Boo, K. Dabi, A.M. Bugarbaruah
For the Respondents: G. Deka, B. Dutta
Headnote:
Constitution of India Article 226 – Praying For Issuance - Nature of mandamus – Learned counsel for the petitioner, Appearing on behalf of State respondent, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to issue the final settlement order of Ferry Service over River in his name and to rescind, recall or forbear from allowing the respondent No. 3 in running the ferry service and during the pendency of this case, the operation of ferry service by the respondent be stayed and direct the Revenue Department or Respondent authorities to collect the tolls –Held, Case of the petitioner was very much confronted by the other State respondents as well as private respondent and it has come to a clear position that the respondent authorities while opening the tender, has appreciated all the pros and cons of the subject that the earlier tender process has not mentioned any of the safety and security measure to be taken neither the amount of fare and other necessary instruments like mechanizing boat and bridge so as to prevent untoward incident, which happens in the river – So they have ultimately decided to cancel the earlier tender and issued a fresh re-tender by raising the rates and by inserting all the requisite terms and conditions therein, which is very much apparent from the annexure so submitted in this regard – Writ petitions is dismissed
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. G. Deka, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions. WP(C) 456 (AP) 2014 has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to issue the final settlement order of Ferry Service over Lohit-Kamlang River in his name and to rescind, recall or forbear from allowing the respondent No. 3 in running the ferry service and during the pendency of this case, the operation of ferry service by the respondent No. 3 be stayed and direct the Revenue Department or Respondent authorities to collect the tolls.
2. It is the case of the petitioner in WP(C) 456 (AP) 2014 that the Deputy Commissioner, Namsai, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NTT) dated 21.10.2014 inviting tenders from all the intending Contractors/Working Agencies of Namsai and Lohit Districts, for ferry service for crossing of HMV/LMW Two Wheeler and passengers over the Lohit-Kamlang River for the year 2014-15. it is the contention of the petitioner that he is the highest bidder amongst all the bidders and has been waiting for the issuance of the final settlement order for operating the ferry service and the respondent No. 3 is the second highest bidder. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Namsai District, Namsai, without any reason, refused to issue the final settlement order in favour of the petitioner, and allowing the private respondent No. 3 for operating the ferry service, in question, illegally & arbitrarily. The petitioner has alleged that the said respondent No. 3 is the son of a local ML A and nephew of the local Minister of the present Government and he is running the said ferry service for the last five years without any authority of law. The respondent No. 2 in violation of law and by misusing the official power and privilege has allowed the respondent No. 3 to run the said ferry-ghat by way of irregularity, illegality, nepotism and favouritism. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The subsequent writ petition being WP(C) 472 (AP) 2014 has been filed by the same petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the impugned Re-tender Notice issued by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.12.2014 for ferry service over Lohit-Kamlang River between Digaru-Alubari and directing the respondent No. 2 to issue the final settlement order of ferry service over Lohit-Kamlang River in the name of the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner has also prayed for staying of the impugned Re-Tender Notice dated 10.12.2014 during pendency of this petition and to direct the Revenue Department or the Government Officer to collect the tolls.
4. The facts, narrated by the petitioner, in this case, is that, there were public resentment against the respondent No. 2 for non-issuance of tender for the last five years and in allowing the operation of the ferry service over Lohit Kamlang River between Digaru-Alubari Ghat to private respondent No. 3 (son of the local MLA). The respondent No. 2 viz. Deputy Commissioner, Namsai, had issued the original NIT dated 21.10.2014 inviting sealed tender from the intending contractors/working agencies of Namsai and Lohit District for ferry service for crossing the HMV/LMV/Two Wheeler and passengers over the Lohit Kamlang River during the year 2014-15. In the said NTT, the petitioner is the highest bidder and the respondent No. 3 is the second highest bidder in the fray. The respondent No. 2 refused to issue the final settlement order in favour of the petitioner without assigning any reason and allowing the respondent No. 3 illegally and arbitrarily for operating the ferry service over the said Digaru-Alubari Ghat. Being ag
