IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Abdul Siddik, S/o. Shri Abdul Mojid & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4583 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 Section 109[6] and 52[1][a] - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Tender Notice - Sale value - No confirmation of settlement order - Bid values - Whether order of settlement in respect of a market is to be passed by concerned Panchayat or concerned Zilla Parishad - If bid value offered by any one bidder - Held, it is Zilla Parishad while undertaking exercise has to make application of its mind independently by taking into consideration relevant factors and examine matter for according or declining confirmation to decision taken by Panchayat with regard to settlement of Market - Respondent authorities in Panchayat and Zilla Parishad are directed to revisit matter of settlement once again on basis of records containing tender documents of participant bidders and to arrive at a decision on settlement of Market in terms of Tender Notice and in compliance of provisions of Section 105[4] read with Section 109[6] of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - As tenure of settlement of Market is going to end on - Writ Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, 3 [three] in nos., assailing the action on the part of the Naoboicha Anchalik Panchayat in settling Dejoo Saturday Weekly Market in favour of the respondent no. 8 inter-alia on the grounds that the bid values of the petitioners were higher than the bid value offered by the respondent no. 8. The additional grounds on which the impugned order of settlement have been challenged are : firstly, the bid value offered by the petitioner no. 1 being more than Rs.1,00,000/-, there was violation of the provisions of Section 109[6] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended; and secondly, there was clear violation of the provisions of Section 105[4] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, as there was no confirmation of the settlement order passed by the Anchalik Panchayat by the jurisdictional Zilla Panchayat.
2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in this writ petition can be exposited, in brief, as follows:-
2.1 A Tender Notice dated 23.05.2022 for settlement of 8 [eight] nos. of markets [‘Tender Notice’, for short] was published by the respondent no. 5 inviting sealed bids from intending bidders for their settlement for the Panchayat Year : 2022-2023, as per the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, that is, for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023. One of the markets in respect of which bids were called for, was Dejoo Saturday Weekly Market [‘the Market’, for short] within the territorial jurisdiction of Naoboicha Anchalik Panchayat and Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad. As per the Tender Notice, the yearly sale value of the Market was fixed at Rs.84,814/-. The last date of submission of bids was originally fixed on 14.06.2022. By a subsequent Notice dated 13.06.2022, the last date of submission of bids was, however, extended to 17.06.2022.
2.2 It is an admitted position, as revealed from the records of settlement, that in response to the Tender Notice for settlement of the Market, a total of 10 nos. of bids were received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order, quoted by the 10 nos. of bidders were as under :-
| Sl. No. | Bidder number | Bid value offered |
| 1. | Bidder no. 1 [the petitioner no. 1] | Rs.2,05,000.00 |
| 2. | Bidder no. 2 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 3. | Bidder no. 3 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 4. | Bidder no. 4 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 5. | Bidder no. 5 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 6. | Bidder no. 6 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 7. | Bidder no. 7 | Rs.1,00,000.00 |
| 8. | Bidder no. 8 [the petitioner no. 2] | Rs.99,999.99 |
| 9. | Bidder no. 9 [the petitioner no. 3] | Rs.99,999.98 |
| 10. | Bidder no. 10 [the respondent no. 8] | Rs.95,999.00 |
2.3 After submission of the bids, the sealed bids were opened by the Naoboicha Anchalik Panchayat. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 6, it has been averred that the sealed bids were opened by the General Standing Committee of Naoboicha Anchalik Panchayat, constituted under Section 52[1][a] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. It has emerged from the case papers that subsequent thereto, an undated order of settlement came to be issued in respect of the Market whereby the Market had been settled in favour of the respondent no. 8 for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 at the bid value offered by the respondent no. 8.
3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N.K. Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6; Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.
4. The service of notice was effected upon the respondent no. 7 by way of dastiand the petitioner had submitted a compliance affidav
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....
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....
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.