ORDER

Date : 05-08-2022 Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K.

Debnath, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, Mr. B. Deuri, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 7.

The writ petitioner herein has assailed the decision of the respondent authorities to award the order of settlement of the Sukhowarjhar to Manikpur via Satrukanara Parghat for the period from 01-07-2022 to 30-06-2023 in favour of the respondent No. 7. It appears that the Mondia Anchalik Panchayat had issued a NIT dated 13-05-2022 inviting bids for settlement of different Hats/ Ghats/ Fisheries coming under its jurisdiction. The writ petitioner, the respondent No. 7, along with other bidders had submitted bids for settlement of the aforesaid parghat. On opening the tenders, it was found that the petitioner had quoted Rs. 3,25,000/- per month. However, the respondent No. 7 had offered a sum of Rs. 3,60,999/- for the period of one year and thereafter, had offered higher price than the petitioner.

According to the writ petitioner, the tender of the respondent No. 7 was defective since he had failed to submit registration certificate of the boat as well as valid insurance policy in his own name. In such view of the matter, it is claimed that the price offered by the petitioner was a highest valid offer and therefore, the settlement ought to have been made in favour of the writ petitioner.

In order to verify the allegations made in the writ petition, this Court had called for the records and at the same time, taking note of the stand taken by the learned departmental counsel that the petitioner also did not have a valid registration for its boat, had directed the writ petitioner to bring those documents on record by filing additional affidavit.

Upon perusal of the records produced by the departmental counsel, it appears that the respondent No. 7 had infact submitted registration certificate of the boat as well as the insurance policy but those were not in his name. On the contrary, the petitioner did not submit any valid registration certificate in respect of the boat offered by him.

By filing an additional affidavit dated 04-08-2022, the writ petitioner had merely brought the copy of the insurance policy but the registration certificate of the boat was not annexed.

Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, admitted that his client had merely applied for a valid registration certificate of the boat but had not received the same as on date of submission of the tender.

Mr. Debnath has further argued that the petitioner also did not submit EMD in his own name and therefore, the tender of the petitioner was defective on such count as well.

According to Mr. R. Ali, the writ petitioner had submitted the EMD in somebody else name and that too, after the last date of submission of the tender. On such count, the bid of the petitioner was defective and he get the settlement of the parghat. By referring to the tender documents, Mr. R. Ali has further argued that only clauses 1 to 16 of the NIT were mandatory in nature and the tender submitted by the respondent No. 7 did comply with all such NIT requirements.

After hearing the submission of learned counsel for both the sides, it is apparent that the petitioner is relying upon the clause 23 of the NIT, according to which, the registration of the boat as well as the insurance policy is required to be submitted by the tenderor. The said clause, however, does not mention that the registration certificate of the boat as well as the insurance policy must be in the name of the tenderor. If that be so, it cannot be said that the tender submitted by the respondent No. 7 was defective. On the contrary, the writ petitioner has failed to submit registration certificate of the boat. Therefore, it is evident that his tender submitted by the petitioner