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

2023 Supreme(Gau) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Mofiz Ali, S/o. Shri Jubed Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Panchayat and Rural Development Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4607 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.H. Laskar.

Headnote:

Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 105[4] and 109[6] - Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 - Rule 47 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Admitted - Submission of bids - Naoboicha - No confirmation of settlement order whether order of settlement in respect of a market is to be passed by concerned Anchalik Panchayat or concerned Zilla Parishad - Held, At this stage counsel for respondent has submitted that respondent has already deposited installment amount to operate market upto and respondent is presently operating market - He may be allowed to operate market till - In directions given respondent no. 8 may be permitted to operate market till decision on settlement of Market is made by the Zilla Parishad and further decision about operation of Market will abide by final decision arrived at by Zilla Parishad - In event order of settlement made in favour of respondent nis interfered with and if any excess amount of installment is found to be refunded to respondent due to deposit already made by him same shall be refunded by respondent authorities forthwith thereafter - Writ Petition Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the action on the part of the Naoboicha Anchalik Panchayat in settling Silonibari Saturday Market in favour of the respondent no. 8 inter-alia on the ground that the bid value of the petitioner was 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 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 7 [seven] 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 Silonibari Saturday 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.45,818/-. 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 7 [seven] nos. of bids were received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order, quoted by the 7 [seven] nos. of bidders were as under :-

Sl. No.

Bidder number

Bid value offered

1.

Bidder no. 1

Rs.1,00,000.00

2.

Bidder no. 2

Rs.99,999.99

3.

Bidder no. 3

Rs.82,001.99

4.

Bidder no. 4

Rs.77,393.93

5.

Bidder no. 5

Rs.63,999.00

6.

Bidder no. 6 [the petitioner]

Rs.62,105.00

7.

Bidder no. 7 [the respondent no. 8]

Rs.55,200.00

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 petitioner; 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. None has appeared for the respondent no. 7.

4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the bid values offered by the petitioner in respect of the Market was higher than the bid value offered by the respondent no. 8. He has referred to the provisions of Section 52[1][a], Section 53[1], Section 81[a], Secti


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