High Court
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BK SHARMA Heard Mr. H.R.Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Das, lea rned Standing Counsel, BTC. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Annexur e-5, communication dated 21.2.2013 made to the Block Development Officer, Mahama ya Development Block, Bagribari by the Deputy Secretary, Bodoland Territorial C ouncil, Kokrajhar. By the said letter direction has been issued to take necessar y action towards compliance of the order of this Court dated 8.2.2013 passed in W.P(C) No.3400/2012 and to issue fresh NIT.
Decision
The matter relates to settlement of Bagribari Araiani Daily Bazar for w hich NIT was issued on 20.4.2012. The petitioner had offered Rs.99,999.99. He w as aggrieved when the market was not settled with him, although he was the highe st bidder. He filed the writ petition being W.P(C) 3400/12 which was disposed of by order dated 8.2.2013 re-produced below: (cid:28)Heard Mr.HR Ahmed , learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.Khound , learned SC, BTC. The case of the petitioner as reflected in the order passed on 28.01.20 13 is as follows: (cid:28)Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.8, it is submit ted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.9 has been settled at the bid value of Rs.91,507/- which is more than the scheduled rate of Rs.39,300/-. Be it stated here that the petitioner offered bid value of Rs .99,999.99. Referring to Annexure-C letter dated 13.07.2012 annexed to the coun ter affidavit, Mr Ahmed , learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that another weekly bazaar, namely , Ratur Hat weekly Bazar has been settled at Rs. 99,901/- as against the scheduled rate of Rs.2,500/-. I have perused the minutes of the meeting of the Market Settlement Comm ittee held on 27.06.2012 in which it was decided as follows: (cid:28)1. The meeting discussed and decided to approve for settlement of lease of Mar ket/Parking/Parghat/Min Mahal etc. who tendered/offered highest rate/value prov ided availability of necessary papers/documents of the tender. 2. The meeting was decided to approve the tender as per Govt of Assam Market & Fairs Department as rules/Act. 3. The meeting was decided that thebid value offered by the tendered if foun d/shown double of the schedule rate will be treated as abnormal rate and not be settled to him. 4. The committee was approved the lease of Settlement of Markets / Parghat / M in Mahal / Parking etc. for the year 2012-13 as shown Block wise as per compara tive statement submitted by the covered Block Development Officers of BTC area. (cid:28) If we go by the above policy adopted in the meeting, the Committee was t o consider the rate double the scheduled rate as abnormal. However, the responde nt No.9 was settled with the Market whose bid value was double the scheduled ra te. Thus, there is inherent contradiction in the stand of the Market Committee. The petitioner had offered bid value of Rs.99,999.99 which is only about Rs. 8 000/- more than the rate offered by the respondent No.9 . If the respondent N o. 9 could be settled with the market, there is no reason as to why the petition er cannot be settled with the market. Although Mr. Khound , learned SC, BTC submits that the bid value offere d by the petitioner was incomplete in view of non-submission of land holding certificate, but on being asked as to the requirement of the same, nothing cou ld be pointed out. On peusal of the comparative statement and the minutes of th e aforesaid meeting, there is nothing to indicate regarding rejection of the b id value offered by the petitioner. Rather, the affidavit in opposition filed b y the respondent No.8 suggests that the respondent No.9 was settled with the mar ket on the aforementioned ground which is self contradictory in reference to the aforesaid minutes of the market committee. (cid:29) Mr.Khound, learned SC, BTC was granted time to obtain instruction in the matter. He submits that the tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected o n the grounds of non-submission of original land patta; land valuation certif icate; sales tax certificate; income tax cetificate and non- encumbrance certif icate. However, the said requirement were not depicted in the tender notice . In the order of settlement also there is no indication of rejection of the case o f the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds. The minutes of the tender committee also does not suggest that the tender of the petitioner has been rejected. The impugned action will have to be tested on the basis of the grounds assigned and the respondents cannot develop the case by subsequent stand. In view of the above, the impugned order of settlement dated 11.07.2012 made in favour of the respondent No. 9 stands set aside and quashed and the ma tter shall now go back to the Market Settlement Committee for passing fresh ord er in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible , preferably within 28.02 .2013. (cid:29) By the aforesaid order while setting aside the settlement order dated 11 .7.2012 made in favour of the respondent No.9, direction was issued to pass fres h order in accordance with law on or before 28.02.2013. On perusal of the order, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that the authority in the BTC was direct ed to pass a fresh settlement order on the basis of tenders submitted by the par ties. However, instead, by the aforesaid impugned communication dated 21.2.2013, direction has been issued to initiate fresh tender process. Mr.Das , learned Standing Counsel, BTC submits that the decision to g o for a fresh tender has been taken in view of inherent infirmities in the ear lier tender conditions.This submission is contrary to the stand taken by the BTC in the earlier round of litigation, in view of which the impugned order of se ttlement made in favour of the respondent No.9 was interfered with by this Cour t. In view of the above I am of the considered opinion that the BTC has iss ued the impugned communication not considering the matter in its true perspectiv e and in terms of the aforesaid order dated 8.2.2013 passed in WP(C) No.3400/201 2. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pa ss a fresh settlement order on the basis of tenders submitted in response to the earlier NIT dated 20.4.2012. In the meantime there shall be no bar to initiate fresh tender process for subsequent period starting from 1.7.2013. It is submitt ed that the present term of settlement 2012-13 is up to 30.6.2013. Necessary order in terms of this order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 7.3.2013. Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.