Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
Robin Phukan, J.
Shri Rajo Natung, S/o Late Tagam Natung - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of AP, To Be Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt Of AP, RWD, Itanagar, AP. - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No.198 (AP) of 2020
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency as per Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Land compensation - E-procurement Notice – Challenged - Writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over decision of employer as to whether or not to accept bid of a tenderer – Court does not have expertise to examine terms and conditions of present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Para 23
Finding of Court : Applying aforesaid proposition of law to facts and circumstances herein this case, court is of view that E- Procurement Notice dated, issued by respondent authorities for upgradation of existing segment though it suffered from self contradictions in respect of value of contract, width of road and contravention of PMGSY-II 2013 guideline, cannot be quashed - Court in PIL No., in respect of construction of road as per proposal sent MoRTH within a period of 2 years, yet, affidavit of respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and Annexure - 1 series, at page No. 6 of said affidavit, reveals that National Highway Authority of India due to obligatory or other reason, has not included road from Sede to Pijeraing in aliments of Trans Arunachal Highway, and said proposal was not accepted on account of same being found not feasible by MoRTH, which is apparent from affidavit filed by State respondent in PIL No.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :
Heard Mr. A. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, for the State respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6.
2. Four petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the e-procurement Notice, dated 22.06.2020, issued by the Executive Engineer/PIU, Pakke-Kessang for construction/up- gradation of roads from 27.00 KM of Sede to Pijiriang, under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana –II (herein after PMGSY-II, Up gradation) and maintenance thereof, for five years, along with BID documents available from 23.06.2020, and to direct the respondent authorities to pay their land compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency as per the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pass appropriate order or directions, as the Court deem fit and proper to grant adequate relief to the petitioners, for the ends of justice.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated here in below:-
The land of the petitioners lie along the BRO Road from Sede to Pakro section point 127 to 158, which was covered by the notification dated 18.12.2011 and accordingly, they have, along with the affected villagers, received compensation. However, finally, an alternative alignment was adapted from Sede to Pakro and the villages of the petitioners, which lie along the old BRO Road, were excluded. Being aggrieved by the said act of the respondents, some affected people approached the High Court by filing the PIL No.101/2013, alleging inter alia that the new shortened alignment of the National Highway from Sede to Pakro, is in violation of the plan, proposed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the petitioners of the PIL sought a direction from the Court to set aside the changed alignment between Sede to Pakro and to construction of the National Highway on Sede-Pakro segment, as per the existing BRO Road alignment.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that prior to sending its proposal to the MoRTH, steps were taken by the State Government to acquire the land needed for upgrading the existing BRO Road on Sede-Pakro segment and the compensation amount was assessed and deposited with the authorities for disbursement to the land owners.
In the PIL, the respondent authorities filed an affidavit admitting that survey was conducted by the Government to upgrade the BRO Road on Sede-Pakro segment to make it a two-lane road and also to pass through the villages as stated by the petitioners and in pursuant to survey, lands have been acquired and compensation has been assessed and deposited with the authorities for disbursement to the land owners. However, it is stated that the MoRTH did not find the proposal of the State Government a feasible one.
It is also the case of the petitioners that by the order dated 18.09.2014, passed in the PIL No.101/2013, this Court casts responsibility on the State Government to upgrade and complete the alignment along BRO Road of 31 KM, in 2 years to National Highway Two Lane specification. However, the State Government had failed to comply with the order dated 18.09.2014, passed in the PIL No.101/2013. Rather, the impugned e-procurement Notice dated 22.06.2020,
Point of Law : Unless arbitrariness or mala fide on part of the tendering authority is alleged, expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory provisions for land acquisition and transect walk under the PMGSY Scheme and Guidelines must be strictly followed, and non-compl....
The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, especially in matters involving technical issues, and highlighted the limitations of the court's expertise i....
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness; minor technical defects in bids do not justify interference unless proven arbitrary or mala fide.
(1) Tender – Courts must give fair play in joints to Government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract – Courts must also not interfere where such interference would cause unnecessary ....
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
