Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Abdul Barek Son Of Late Kolim Uddin - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 4293, 4309, 4312 of 2023
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Tender Submission - Prevented Submission - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 105(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were prevented from submitting their bids for settlement of markets due to the tender box being made available later than scheduled. The markets were settled at considerably lower rates for the year 2023-2024, causing a loss to the public exchequer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were obstructed from submitting their tender documents, but the disputed question of fact remained unresolved. It also found that the settlement rates for the markets were considerably lower than in previous years, causing a substantial loss to the government.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were prevented from submitting their tender documents and whether there was a loss to the public exchequer in settling the markets for the year 2023-2024.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed an enquiry into the low settlement rates and the possibility of connivance of government officials and Panchayat members with successful tenderers, as well as the initiation of proper action, including criminal cases, if mischief was found.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, and the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department was directed to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action within 10 weeks.
1. Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD Department and Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 in all the cases. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.8 in all the three writ petitions.
2. The grievance of the petitioners are that they had not been able to submit their bids pursuant to the tender notice dated 11.04.2023 issued by the Bechimari Anchalik Panchayat for settlement of the (1) Lalpool Weekly Cattle Market (hereinafter referred to as the ‘market’) (2) Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market (hereinafter referred to as the ‘cattle market’) and (3) Bechimari Daily Vegetable Market (hereinafter referred to as the ‘vegetable market’) for the settlement period from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024.
The Lalpool Weekly Cattle Market pertains to WP(C) No.4293/2023, while the Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market relates to WP(C) No.4312/2023. The Bechimari Daily Vegetable Market pertains to WP(C) No.4309/2023.
3. The above 3 markets have been settled with the respondent No.8 of the concerned writ petitions. The prayer of the 3 writ petitioners in all the writ petitions is that the 3 markets had been settled with the private respondents for a total amount of Rs.18,02,373/- for the year 2023-24, though the 3 markets had been settled for the year 2022-23, for a total value of Rs.1,09,48,745/-. Thus, the State respondents had mischievously prevented the petitioners from submitting their bids, so that they could give favours to their blue eyed boys, which resulted in a loss of approximately Rs.90 lakhs to the Public Exchequer.
4. The petitioners have thus prayed for setting aside the orders settling the markets with the private respondents and to cause an enquiry regarding the action of the Bechimari Anchalik Panchayat in preventing the petitioners from submitting their tender documents in the tender box on 06.06.2023. They have also prayed for making a fresh settlement of the markets by issuing fresh tenders.
5. The issues raised by all the 3 writ petitioners being similar in nature, all the 3 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
6. The petitioners case is that the last date for submission of the bids for the markets in terms of the tender notice dated 11.04.2023 was 06.06.2023. However, on the said date, the tender box was put out for submitting the bids of the tenderers at 1 p.m. only, instead of 10 a.m and the bids were allowed to be submitted till 2 p.m. The initial timing given for submission of the bids was from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Though the petitioners were standing in a line to submit their bids, the tender box was brought out from the office at 1 p.m only on 06.06.2023 and the dropping of the tender documents into the tender box was closed at 2 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioners could not submit their tender documents, as there were a number of persons in front of them, who also could not drop their tender documents in the tender box.
7. As the petitioners could not submit their bids in the bid/tender box, the petitioners filed WP(C) 3689/2023. WP(C) 3689/2023 was disposed of vide order dated 28.06.2023, with a direction being issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang to make a report with regard to the grievance of the petitioners. Subsequent to the above events, the markets were settled with the private respondents No.8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the fact that the settlement had been made in favour of the private respondents and as the order dated 28.06.2023 passed in WP(C) 3689/2023 had not been complied with, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.
8. In WP(C) 4293/2023, the Lalpool Weekly Cattle Market has been settled with the respondent No.8 for the year 2023-24, i.e., from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024 at the quoted rate of Rs.6,02,375/-, though the said market had been settled for the year 2022-2023 with one
The court emphasized the need for a fair enquiry into the low settlement rates and the possibility of connivance, and the initiation of proper action if mischief was found.
Point of Law : When a bidder gets an order by suppression or concealment of material facts and the tendering authority despite having knowledge of the fact that the bidder has adopted a practice whic....
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.
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....
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
