Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Nareswar Dangiari, S/o. Matiram Dangiari – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
WP(C) No.6322, 4557 of 2022
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 105 and 109(6) - Cancel Re-Tender Notice - Extension of Settlement of Market - Praying that order issued by respondent No. 6, cancelling re-tender notice and extension of settlement of market with respondent No. 7, extension order should be set aside – As settlement of market with respondent No. 7 had been given on a year to year basis, extension given to settlement period of market to respondent No. 7, was in violation of Section 105 of Assam Panchayat act, 1994. Para 11
Finding of the Court:
Settlement of said market by way of impugned extension order clearly shows that Section 105 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has been violated by State respondents - In case of Kosheswar Bharali (supra), this Court had held that State respondents rejection of prayer of petitioner therein, for extension of settlement of market beyond one year, to be valid in law, holding that there was no provision in Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 for extension - In that view of matter, extension order being unsustainable in law, same is set aside - Respondent No. 7 should not be allowed to collect any further toll from vendors in Gorubandha Weekly Market beyond today - At this stage, counsels for petitioner, respondent No. 7 and State Government submit that a fresh tender may be called - Accordingly, in view of consent of parties, respondent No. 6 who is before this Court and State respondents are directed to issue a fresh advertisement, for settlement of Gorubandha Weekly Market, for remaining period of Panchayat Financial Year and select the successful tenderer - It is made clear that respondent No. 5 shall settle market in terms of Section 109(6) of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Further, State respondents shall also make a check-list of documents required from intending tenderers at time of issuance of fresh tender notice, which should be made known to intending tenderers.
Result: Petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. MK Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4557/2022 and the respondent No.7 in WP(C) No. 6322/2022. Heard Mr. SD Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6322/2022. Mr. NK Debnath, learned counsel appears for the P&RD Department, while Mr. M Chetia, learned counsel appears for the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and Chief Secretary, Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. Mousam Das/respondent No. 6, Block Development Officer, Dhekiajuli, Sonitpur, who has appeared in person.
2. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, in view of the fact that issues raised by the petitioners are intertwined and pertains to Gorubandha Weekly Market. For easy disposal of the matters, the placement of the parties in the Cause-Title in WP(C) No. 6322/2022 is taken into consideration.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 7 was running the Gorubandha Weekly Market from the financial year 2019-2022 till 30.06.2022, on the basis of tenders published by the State respondents. As the settlement of the markets (hats) was being done on a yearly basis, in terms of Section 105 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the term of the respondent No. 7 as the settlement holder of the said market was to end on 30.06.2022. Prior to 30.05.2022, the State respondents issued a Notice Inviting Tender (“NIT” in short) dated 13.05.2022, calling for bids from tenderers for settling the Gorubandha Weekly Market for the year 2022-2023, for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023.
4. The respondent No. 7 and the petitioner submitted their tenders in pursuance to the NIT dated 13.05.2022. However, the respondent also submitted a representation dated 23.05.2022 to the State respondents, praying for extension of the settlement of the market, for a further period of one year. The same not being allowed by the State respondents, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 3729/2022 praying for extension of the settlement period of the market for one year.
5. WP(C) No. 3729/2022 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2022.
6. Though the prayer of the respondent No. 7, for extension of the settlement of the market for a period of one year had initially been rejected by the State respondents and by this Court in WP(C) No. 3729/2022, the State respondents extended the settlement period of the market with the respondent No. 7 vide order dated 01.07.2022, till the selection process for appointment of the successful tender, in pursuance to the NIT dated 13.05.2022 was completed.
7. Subsequent to the above facts, the President, Dhekiajuli Anchalik Panchayat and the respondent No. 6 issued a notice of re-tender for settlement of the Gorubandha Weekly Market on 04.07.2022. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 7 filed WP(C) No. 4557/2022, with a prayer that the re-tender notice dated 04.07.2022 should be set aside and that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to consider the bid amount of the respondent No. 7 in terms of the earlier NIT dated 13.05.2022.
8. This Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 in WP(C) No. 4557/2022, passed an interim order to the effect that the re-tender notice should not be finalised by the State respondents.
9. The respondent No. 6 thereafter issued an order dated 08.07.2022, stating that the re-tender notice dated 04.07.2022 had been cancelled, in compliance with the order dated 05.07.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 4557/2022.
10. The petitioner herein has now filed the present writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 6332/2022, praying that the order dated 08.07.2022 issued by the respondent No. 6, cancelling the re-tender notice and the extension of the settlement of the market with the respondent No. 7, vide extension order dated 01.07.2022, should be set aside. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the State respondents, to initiate a fresh tender process for settlement of the Market for the remaining period of the year 2022-2023.
11.
SupremeToday
Section 105 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 clearly provides that settlement of a market (hat) shall not exceed one Panchayat Financial Year and that settlement has to be made by inviting tenderers.
Acceptance of a lesser bid may be permissible but in case of settlement of a market under the aegis of the Anchalik Panchayat and/or Zilla Parishad, the same is ordinarily required to be settled in f....
The discretionary nature of the approval for lease extension and the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in distribution of State largesse.
Process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 6 is found to be vitiated one due to taking into account irrelevant factors in the decision making process....
Point of Law : Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not and it is only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelm....
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
