IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Daulat Miah S/o Md. Janab Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 6761 of 2022
Decided on : 03-04-2023
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 109[6] - Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 - Rule 47[10] - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Comparative Statement - challenging an Order - proposal for settlement - Accord confirmation - Tender Notice - Whether non-affixation of court-fee stamps of amount would render bid of a bidder whose bid was otherwise compliant -
Held, This Court is of considered view that decision of General Standing Committee Dhubri Zilla Parishad to reject bid of petitioner as an invalid bid is clearly erroneous and untenable - Bid of petitioner is to be considered as an irregular one and petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to make good the deficit in court-fee stamps within a stipulated time period - It is only in event petitioner fails to make good deficit in court-fee stamps within a stipulated time period settling authority will have authority and jurisdiction to treat the bid of the petitioner as an invalid one - In matter decision of Panchayat conveyed by impugned Order is liable to be set aside and quashed - Writ Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an Order bearing no. ZPD-231/AAP/Settlement/HGF/2022-23/27 dated 04.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad and a subsequent Order bearing no. AAP/13Hat/Ghat/Min Mahal-2022-23/3601 dated 22.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Executive Officer, Agomoni Anchalik Panchayat. By the impugned order dated 04.08.2022, the respondent no. 2 did not accord confirmation to the proposal for settlement of a fishery named ‘Falimari Beel’ [‘the Fishery’, for short] sent from the Agomoni Anchalik Panchayat, in favour of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner did not affix the requisite court-fee stamps with his bid with the further observation that if the settlement of the Fishery was made in favour of the petitioner, the same would not be in conformity with Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 23.05.2022 [‘the NIT’]. The respondent no. 2 had further directed the respondent no. 3 to proceed for settlement of the Fishery in terms of Clause 10 of the Tender Notice and to settle the Fishery to the next higher bidder. By acting in terms of the Order dated 04.08.2022, the respondent no. 3 had passed the order dated 22.08.2022 settling the Fishery in favour of the respondent no. 5 at his offered bid value of Rs. 36,779/-.
2. The factual matrix leading to the passing of impugned Order on 04.08.2022 can be narrated, in brief, as follows :
By a Tender Notice dated 23.05.2022 published by the Agomoni Anchalik Panchayat, sealed bids were invited from interested bidders for settlement of a number of markets/ghats/fisheries falling under its jurisdiction for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2022-2023 and for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 as per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended. The last date of submission of bids was up to 02-00 p.m. on 15.06.2022. One of the fisheries included for settlement in the NIT dated 23.05.2022 was ‘Falimari Beel’ [‘the Fishery’] under the Agomoni Anchalik Panchayat. The yearly sale value of the Fishery was mentioned as Rs. 32,999/-and the earnest money required to be deposited by a bidder belonging to General Category was mentioned as Rs. 3,300/-. 50% of Rs. 3,300/-was to be deposited by a bidder belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC]/Scheduled Tribe [ST] category as the earnest money.
2.1. In response to the Tender Notice, 8 [eight] nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 5, had submitted their bids quoting different bid values and those bid values, in descending order, were as under :-
| Sl.No. | Bidder number | Bid value offered |
| 1 | Bidder no. 1 | Rs. 81,501.00 |
| 2 | Bidder no. 2 | Rs. 69,999.00 |
| 3 | Bidder no. 3 [the petitioner] | Rs. 65,561.00 |
| 4 | Bidder no. 4 | Rs. 75,0551.00 |
| 5 | Bidder no. 5 | Sic |
| 6 | Bidder no. 6 [the respondent no. 5] | Rs. 36,779.00 |
| 7 | Bidder no. 7 | Rs. 35,999.00 |
| 8 | Bidder no. 8 | Rs. 35,777.00 |
2.2. After receipt of the bids from the participant bidders, the General Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat opened the bids of all the bidders. Thereafter, the General Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat examined the tender papers and recorded their comments in respect of each of the bids in a Comparative Statement prepared in terms of sub-rule [8] of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002. The office of the Anchalik Panchayat thereafter, forwarded the tender papers along with the Comparative Statement recording their comments at relevant places therein, to the office of the Dhubri Zilla Parishad for confirmation to the proposal for settlement of the Fishery in favour of the petitioner in terms of sub-section [4] of Section 109[6] of the Assam Panchayat
The highest valid bidder should be considered for settlement, and acceptance of a tender other than the highest valid tenderer requires prior and formal approval of the government. The competitive bi....
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....
Rule 3 of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 has laid down procedure for Sale of Fisheries.
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....
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.