High Court
Case Details
WA 313/2013 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE,THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI
Legal Reasoning
(A.M.Sapre, CJ) Heard Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants in Misc. C ase No.3150 of 2013. Also heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the writ appella nt, Mr. U. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Inland Water Transport. Though today the matter is listed for passing appropriate orders on miscellaneou s application being Misc. Case No.3150 of 2013, but having regard to the nature of controversy involved and after hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties on the controversy involved in the appeal, and with their consent, t he appeal is heard finally and is accordingly disposed of. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3224 of 2 013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the o rder dated 13.09.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in aforementioned writ peti tion.
Decision
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of two writ petitions f iled by the appellant and respondent No.4 herein by giving certain directions. It is apposite to reproduce the entire order rendered by the learned Single Judg e in verbatim to appreciate the short technical and legal controversy involved i n the writs and now carried in appeal. (cid:28)Heard Mr.PK Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ismail Ali, in WP(c) No. 4658/13 and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Prabin Kr. Mandal, in WP'No. 3224/13. Also heard Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned standin g counsel, Inland Water Transport for Respondent No.2 and Mr. U. Rajbangshi, lea rned standing cousin, Transport Department for Respondent No.1 & 3. The bone of contention in both the writ petitions is the settlement of Majortoop (Alikash) Bhagnamari via Nowbhaja Dekardiya, Kalartook Saralpara (Club basis) F erry Service for the year 2013 to 2015 for two years. The petitioner in WP'No. 4658/13 submitted a bid for Rs.9 Lacs for each year and he was found to be the h ighest bidder among all the eligible bidders. But a confusion arose before the o fficial respondents as to whether the said bid of Rs.9 Lacs was for one year or for two years. A query was made in this regard on 31.5.13 by the Joint Secretary , Transport Department, Govt. of Assam. The said query appears to be satisfied the authority concerned, vide letter dated 23.8.13 they informed that the said R s.9 Lacs was for one year only meaning thereby the bid value for the contract is Rs.18 Lacs in total. In that view of the matter, prima facie the petitioner in WP(c) No.4658/13 is t he highest bidder and in a normal course being the highest bidder, he is entitle d to be settled with the contract as highest bidder. Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP'No.3224/13, however, raised an objection saying that the petitioner, Ismail Ali in WP'No.4658/13 is not a v alid tenderer inasmuch as there are defects in his tender. Be that as it may, the tender committee at the time of examination of the tender papers held the petitioner, Ismail Ali as valid tenderer. Since an objection is made by Prabin Kr. Mandal, the petitioner in WP'No.3224/13, the respondents, mo re particularly, Respondent No.1 shall consider the objection so raised by the s aid Prabin Kr. Mandal and thereafter shall pass necessary order. After examinin g all the papers/documents submitted in the tender process, Ismail Ali is found to be valid tender and is considered as higher bidder, he shall be settled with the Ferry in question. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the dat e of receipt of certified copy of this order. Interim order(s) passed earlier by this Court stand vacated. With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. (cid:29) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the fact that all the learned counsel appearing for the parties did no t dispute seriously the via media proposed by this Court, for disposal of the ap peal, we do not wish to burden our order by narrating each and every aspect of t he factual controversy and dispose of this appeal as under as agreed to between the parties, as mentioned below. (1) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall invite a fresh NIT (Notice Inviting Tend er) for settlement of Majortoop (Alikash) Bhangamari via Nowbhaja Dekardioya, Ka lartook Saralpara (Club basis) Ferry Service for the year 2013-2015 from public at large for award of the contract within three months from the date of this or der as an outer limit. (2) The appellant and the respondent No.4 will also be allowed to participat e in the fresh tender process by submitting their respective tenders along with all others for the work for which (NIT) is to be issued as per clause (1) above. (3) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall refund the kist money etc. which the appella nt and respondent No.4 had deposited while submitting their tender in question. The amount shall be refunded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the appellant and r espondent No.4 within two weeks as an outer limit after proper verification. (4) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall verify and examine all the tenders incl uding that of the appellant and respondent No.4 in accordance with law and the t erms of NIT keeping in view the public interest and will accordingly the contrac t to the best suited tenderer in all respects. Till finalization of tender process and award of contract to successful (5) tenderer, the respondent No.2 shall run the Ferry in question departmentally. (6) ined in clause (1) to (6) properly. Each party to the appeal shall ensure compliance of the directions conta This appeal stands accordingly disposed of. The impugned order is modified to th e extent indicated above. No cost.