THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Based Ali S/o Lt. Rahizuddin - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 6078 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 14, 12, 226 – Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 – Section 105 – Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 – Rule 47 – Territorial Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Nature of Mandamus – Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been instituted by petitioner seeking inter alia a direction nature of mandamus for directing respondent authorities Parishad to settle a market located within territorial jurisdiction – Held, Court considered this writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed petitioner was not accepted by respondent authorities respondent authorities shall refund earnest money deposited by petitioner at time of submission of his bid within a certified copy of this order – Court does not sit on any appeal over any such decision to substitute decision not to settle Market at a bid value which was much lesser in comparison to the settlement amount Market – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner seeking inter alia a direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities in the Barpeta Zilla Parishad to settle a market named Balikuri Market located within the territorial jurisdiction of Sonapur Rubhi Gaon Panchayat under the Mondia Anchalik Panchayat as the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder in the competitive bidding process initiated by and undertaken for settlement of the market i.e. Balikuri Market pursuant to a Tender Notice dated 03.08.2022.
2. I have heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2.
3. As per the office note dated 16.12.2022, the service of notice upon the respondent no. 6 is complete. Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the respondent no. 6 till date.
4. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. By a Tender Notice dated 03.08.2022, the Mondia Anchalik Panchayat invited sealed bids for settlement of a market named Balikuri Market [‘the Market’, for short] located within the Sonapur Rubhi Gaon Panchayat for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2022-2023 and for the period from 16.08.2022 to 30.06.2023, with 12.08.2022 as the last date of submission of bids. In response to the Tender Notice, three bidders including the petitioner, participated in the bidding process. After opening of the bids, the General Standing Committee of Mondia Anchalik Panchayat evaluated the bids and prepared a Comparative Statement in terms of the provisions of Rule 47[7] of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002. As per the Comparative Statement prepared by the General Standing Committee of the Mondia Anchalik Panchayat, the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder at his offered bid value of Rs.91,100/-. When the General Standing Committee of the Mondia Anchalik Panchayat forwarded the entire matter to the Barpeta Zilla Parisad for confirmation in terms of sub-section [4] of Section 105 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as the bid value offered by the highest valid bidder was below Rs.1,00,000/-, the General Standing Committee of the Barpeta Zilla Parishad considered the same in its meeting held on 25.08.2022. In its said meeting, the General Standing Committee considered the fact that the bids were invited for the third occasion after failure to settle the Market subsequent to the bidding processes undertaken by two previous Tender Notices. The General Standing Committee had further observed that on the third occasion, only three bids were received in response to the Tender Notice dated 03.08.2022 and the highest bidder had offered only an amount of Rs.91,100/- which bid value was much lesser than the bid value offered by the settlement holder of the Market during the previous Panchayat Financial Year : 2021–2022 @ Rs. 6,65,000/-. Having considered these aspects, the General Standing Committee of Barpeta Zilla Parishad decided not to give confirmation for settlement of Balikuri Market in favour of the highest valid bidder i.e. the petitioner @ Rs.91,100/-. The General Standing committee, Barpeta Zilla Parishad had taken a decision to ask the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad to issue an order to the Executive Officer of the Mondia Anchalik Parishad to operate the Market for collection of toll, etc. as per the provisions of sub-section [5] of Section 105 of the Assam Pachayat Act, 1994, as amended. The said decision of the General Standing Committee of the Barpeta Zilla Parisad was carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad by a letter dated 26.08.2022 whereby the Executive Officer, Mondia Anchalik Parishad was asked to manage the Market directly by the Anchalik Panchayat in terms of the
State of Jharkhand vs. CWE-SOMA consortium
Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investments
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Om Prakash Sharma
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another
State of Gujarat vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Ravinder Kumar and another
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
Fairness demanded that the tendering authority should have disclosed to all the tenderers beforehand that the bid value above a particular amount or above a particular percentage of the scheduled rat....
Point of Law : Process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 9 is found to be arbitrary and irrational one.
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.