Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J.
NAYEB ALI — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 4288 of 2017
Decided on : 30-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. F.Y. Hussain, Mr. R. Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. T.C. Chutia, Mr. H. Ali, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of transparency and compliance with tender conditions, and upheld the constitutional right to equality under Article 14.
Headnote:
Tender - Settlement of Parghat - 15 (kha), 18 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the settlement of a Parghat to respondent No. 7 by the Zilla Parishad, alleging manipulation and forgery in the tender process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement to respondent No. 7 was not valid due to non-fulfillment of tender conditions and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's bid was also disqualified due to the rewriting of the bid value without disclosure.
Issues: Validity of settlement, Bid disqualification, Manipulation and forgery in tender process
Ratio Decidendi: The settlement without confirmation by the Zilla Parishad is not legally valid. Non-disclosure of material facts in the bid disqualifies the bidder. Violation of tender conditions and constitutional rights renders the settlement invalid.
Final Decision: The settlement of respondent No. 7 was set aside and quashed. The petitioner was also found not entitled to the settlement. The Parghat and its toll collection were to be operated 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 16 bidders participated which was for "Sukhaarzhar Manikpur via Satrakanara Parghat". The petitioners bid was found to be valid at his quoted bid of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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, Habej Uddin was Rs. 1,51,000/- 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 petitioner was engaged in the mean time as an agent of the Mandia AP vide resolution dated 07.07.2017 to collect toll of the said Parghat i.e. Sukhaarzhar Manikpur via Satrakanara Parghat purely on temporary basis. 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 12.07.2017 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 12.07.2017 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 Abdul Halim Parmanik and as per terms of the said agreement, Abdul Halim Parmanik let out hi
