Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J.
KUDDUS ALI — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 4522 of 2017
Decided on : 30-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Ali, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Mr. TC Chutia, Mr. H. Ali, Advocate
The finality of the decision of the Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat and the requirement for confirmation of settlement by the Zilla Parishad are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Tender - Settlement of Parghat - 15 (kha), 18 - The court discussed the tender notice clauses 15 (kha) and 18, which stipulated qualifying criteria for bidders and cancellation of tender if conditions were not fulfilled. The court also referred to the decision in Abdul Gani v. State of Assam, emphasizing the finality of the decision of the Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat and the requirement for confirmation of settlement by the Zilla Parishad.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the settlement of Parghat to respondent No. 7, alleging manipulation of records and forged agreement. The respondent No. 7 claimed validity based on an agreement with another party for boat insurance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's bid was disqualified due to the rewriting of the bid value without disclosure, and the respondent No. 7's settlement was invalid due to non-fulfillment of tender conditions and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Validity of settlement, manipulation of records, fulfillment of tender conditions, and finality of the decision of the Standing Committee and confirmation by the Zilla Parishad.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision of the Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat is final, but settlement must be confirmed by the Zilla Parishad. Suppression of material facts can disqualify a bidder. Tender conditions must be strictly adhered to, and any violation may render the settlement invalid.
Final Decision: The settlement of respondent No. 7 was set aside and quashed, and the petitioner was also found not entitled to the settlement. The Parghat and its toll collection were to be operated based on a decision by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department.
1. Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Mr. H Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7.
2. The petitioner states that the President of Mandia Anchalik Panchayat issued a tender notice on 09.05.2017 for settlement of Hat/Parghats/Fishery etc. falling under the jurisdiction of the said panchayat for the year 2017-18. The said tender notice stipulated qualifying criteria of the bidders and amongst other clauses 15 (kha), and 18 which are relevant and reproduced hereinbelow:-
"(B) In respect of Parghat the tenderer should submit the copy of insurance policy in respect of boat and passengers. After getting the settlement holder should submit the license of the haul operator and capacity of passengers. The settlement holder should also keep the articles of safety in the boat otherwise settlement will be cancelled.
18. If the terms and condition of Part-1 & 2 from serial No. 1 to 17 is not fulfilled, tender will be cancelled." (Translated from the vernacular)
3. The tender was opened wherein 10 bidders participated which was for "Milijuli Koimari to Tapajil Beki Nodi Parghat". The petitioners bid was found to be valid at his quoted bid of Rs. 61,000/- which was accepted by the Standing Committee of Mandia Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as Mandia AP). The bid quoted by the respondent No. 7, Sorhab Ali was Rs. 1,10,501/- but as there was no insurance coverage of his own boat, his bid was rejected. The comparative statement was prepared by the Mandia AP and vide covering letter dated 03.07.2017, the Executive Officer, Mandia AP sent all the tender documents along with the comparative statement for confirmation. The bid of petitioner was found eligible. Vide letter dated 15.07.2017, the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad, respondent No. 3 settled the said Parghat to respondent No. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.07.2017 directing the respondent No. 3 to confirm the settlement on the petitioner.
4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No. 7 did not raise any objection against the comparative statement which speaks about the deficiency on the part of the respondent No. 7 that there was no insurance coverage of the boat in his name. The respondent No. 3 manipulated the records and prepared a fake comparative statement showing that there was insurance coverage of the boat of respondent No. 7. It is further stated that the respondent No. 3 has no power to re-examine the comparative statement once it is opened by the Standing Committee of Mandia AP. Relying the decision of this court in Abdul Gani v. State of Assam reported in 2012 (4) GLT 1, Mr. Ali submits that the decision of the Standing Committee of the AP is final and Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ZP) cannot sit as an appellate authority. But misusing the power, the respondent No. 3 issued the settlement order in favour of the respondent No. 7.
5. The respondent No. 7 filed his affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that Anchalik Panchayat prepared the comparative statement with mala fide intention and rejected the bid of respondent No. 7 on the ground of non-submission of the insurance coverage of his boat. The Zilla Parishad verified the tender papers and found the bid of respondent No. 7 as valid and highest bidder and vide order dated 15.07.2017 settled the Parghat with the respondent No. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel that an agreement was made between the respondent No. 7 and one Samsul Haque and as per terms of the said agreement, Samsul Haque let out his own boat which was insured to the respondent No. 7 on hire for a period of 1 (one) year. On consideration of the said agreement, the respondent No. 3 settled the Parghat to the respondent No. 7.
6
