SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Malegarh Gobindapur Fishery Cooperative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 7 Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 3314 of 2019
Decided on : 02-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.Das Sr. Adv

Point of Law: Petitioner society is not a new society but a society registered in the year 1959 and there are materials on record to establish that not only the petitioner was considered for settlement of the Fishery in question, there has been instances of the Fishery being settled with the petitioner society.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, - Rule 12 - Settlement of a fishery - Territories - Petitioner is a Cooperative Society, - Apart from challenging settlement of Fishery to respondent higher bidder also claims settlement of Fishery in question in its favour - Pursuant to a notice inviting tender for settlement of Fishery in question for petitioner society which was eligible in all respects had submitted his bid.- Amongst others, there was a requirement of Clearance Certificate, Neighborhood Certificate, Experience Certificate, Annual Statements of Returns etc - On opening of bids, price bid of petitioner was found to be Rs.21,03,225/- whereas that of by the respondent was It was however held that petitioner society was not within jurisdiction of district and therefore not entitled to submit tender. - Said information was communicated to petitioner, vide a letter.

Finding of the Court:

Petitioner society is not a new society but a society registered in the year 1959 and there are materials on record to establish that not only the petitioner was considered for settlement of the Fishery in question, there has been instances of the Fishery being settled with the petitioner society - If the petitioner society was held eligible and was indeed settled with the Fishery in question on earlier occasions, there is no scope for rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the cited grounds-Court would left with no other option but to hold that impugned order by which bid of petitioner has been rejected and that of respondent has been accepted is not sustainable in law and accordingly same is set aside and quashed - Consequently, it is directed that settlement of Fishery be made with petitioner society at price offered by it. - Said settlement has to be for period which was mentioned in NIT which is seven years. - Aforesaid process be completed expeditiously and in any event, within a month from date of receipt of a certified copy of order - Court in case of reported in wherein it has been held that public interest is of paramount consideration for settlement - Court in case of reported in has categorically held that in matters of settlement which earns revenue for Government paramount factor is public interest.

Result: Writ petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

The extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by filing this writ petition pertaining to the settlement of a fishery namely, 1/77 Didgdar Brahmaputra Fishery (the Fishery). The petitioner which is a Cooperative Society, apart from challenging the settlement of the Fishery to the respondent No. 8, the 4th higher bidder also claims settlement of the Fishery in question in its favour.

2. The brief facts of the case can be narrated as follows:

3. The petitioner is a registered cooperative society in the district of Bongaigaon with registration No. D-101/1958-59 dated 09.02.1959 consisting of 100% Fisherman belong to the Scheduled Caste. The area of operation of the petitioner society, amongst others, are Malegarh, Gobindapur, Jitikibari, Goalpara Baluchar, all under the earlier Goalpara Sub-Division which are presently under the Bongaigaon district. The petitioner society claims to have adequate fishing experience.

4. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender dated 24.05.2018 for settlement of the Fishery in question for 7(seven) years, the petitioner society which was eligible in all respects had submitted his bid. Amongst others, there was a requirement of Bakijai Clearance Certificate, Neighborhood Certificate, Experience Certificate, Annual Statements of Returns etc. On opening of the bids, the price bid of the petitioner was found to be Rs.21,03,225/-whereas that of by the respondent No. 8 was Rs.11,11,111/-. It was however held that the petitioner society was not within the jurisdiction of the Goalpara district and therefore not entitled to submit the tender. The said information was communicated to the petitioner, vide a letter dated 30.06.2018.

5. Subsequently, vide an order dated 20.12.2018, the respondent No. 8 was issued the settlement order at the price offered. The order further disclosed that rejection of the bid of the petitioner on the ground of an inappropriate Fishing Experience Certificate, improper Bakijai Clearance Certificate and also a Neighborhood Certificate.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that none of the aforesaid grounds are valid and correct. On the other hand, it is contended that the authorities while making the settlement lost sight of a vital aspect of the matter namely, the huge difference in the price offered by the petitioner and that by the respondent No. 8 which was about Rs.10(ten) lacs. Accordingly, it is prayed that due interference be made by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.

7. I have heard Shri D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri S. Khound. I have also heard Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P. Bhardwaj. The State is represented by Shri B.J. Talukdar, the Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. The records of the case have also been furnished by Shri Talukdar.

8. Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it suffers from non consideration of the relevant factors and is based on irrelevant and extraneous factors. The Senior Counsel has contended that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner society are on non existing grounds and even if it is assumed that certain grounds have been assigned, those are wholly irrelevant and without any basis.

9. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Fishery Department, more particularly the discussions against paragraph 6 pertaining to the petitioner society, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities have come to a conclusion that the bid of the petitioner suffers from the following shortcomings-

    i. The fishing experience certificate issued by the DFDO, Bongaigaon in the name of the President of the society which does not cover all the members of the society.

ii. The Bakijai clearance certificate has been issued by the Bakijai Offic

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top