Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Sri Subhas Das, S/o Late Todari Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
1. Heard Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. Mr. S.R. Barua, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 & 6, while Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.7. No one appears for the respondent no.5 despite the counsel having appeared earlier and the respondent no.5 having filed affidavit-in-opposition.
2. The challenge in the writ petition is to the settlement of the Gelachinga Fishery with the respondent no.5 for a period of 7 (seven) years, w.e.f. 01.04.2018 till 31.03.2025, at the respondent no.5’s bid amount of Rs.1,13,05,000/-.
3. The respondent no.5 has submitted his affidavit dated 22.08.2019. However, the AFDC, i.e. the respondent nos.2 to 4 have not submitted any affidavit till today, even though the writ petition was filed on 10.10.2018. This Court has granted the AFDC, i.e. the respondent nos.2 to 4, four opportunities to produce the official records for disposal of the case. Today, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC submits that the official records are untraceable and accordingly, vide letter dated 22.04.2024, the Project Mana
Non-fulfillment of mandatory conditions under the NIT, specifically Clause 2.7, led to the setting aside of the settlement with respondent no.5.
Point of Law : A certificate issued by such an authority carries with it a presumption under Section 114 III.(e) – “That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
The rejection of bids based on conditions not stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender or the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 was held to be based on irrelevant considerations. The bids of the Petitioners ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement process for a fishery must adhere to the requirements specified in the relevant rules and tender notice. The court emphasized t....
The court established that in matters of public revenue settlements, the highest financial bid must be prioritized unless there are valid and justifiable grounds for rejection that comply with the ap....
The court upheld the tender authority's discretion to relax submission requirements, emphasizing that tender evaluations are commercial decisions that should not be interfered with lightly.
The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and complying with previous court directions in issuing public notices for settlement of government assets, and highlighted the need ....
The court emphasized the authority's discretion in deciding whether to issue re-tender notices and the importance of protecting government revenue in settlement processes.
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
