High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4169/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. B Dutta, learned Go vt. Advocate, Assam, who has produced the relevant record. Also heard Mr. H Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitio ner seeks quashing of settlement order dated 19.07.2013 settling (cid:28)Kadong Sonapur Beki Nadir Parghat (cid:29) with respondent No. 7 for the year 2013-14. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. Mandia Anchalik Panchayat issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14.05.2013 i nviting tenders for settlement of various Hats/Ghats etc., falling within its ju risdiction for the year 2013-14, including the (cid:28)Kadong Sonapur Beki Nadir Pargha t (cid:29). Present petition is concerned with the settlement of (cid:28)Kadong Sonapur Beki Nadir Parghat (cid:29) (Parghat). Tenders were opened on 13.06.2013 and it was found that altogether 19 tenderers had submitted tenders for the Parghat. Petitioner had offered Rs. 2,74,404.00, w hereas respondent No. 7 offered Rs.2,86,450.00. Anchalik Panchayat authority whi le preparing the comparative chart cancelled the tenders of tenderers whose bid values were first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh. Third and fourth highest bi dders withdrew their tenders. Bid offered by respondent No. 7 was the 8th highes t bidder. However, complaint was made that respondent No. 7 had not submitted th e tender as he was only a name lender. In this connection, it was pointed out th at signature of respondent No. 7 was not genuine. Anchalik Panchayat authority c alled respondent No. 7 and asked him to sign in their presence. His signature wa s compared with the signature appearing in the tender. It was found that the two signatures did not tally. Therefore, tender of respondent No.7 was rejected. Pe titioner being the next highest valid tenderer, he was under expectation that se ttlement would be made in his favour. As the value of the bids were above 1 lakh, the tender papers were forwarded to the Barpeta Zilla Parishad for necessary decision. Chief Executive Officer of th e Barpeta Zilla Parishad issued the impugned order dated 19.07.2013 settling the Parghat with respondent No. 7 at the bid value offered by him. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 was only a name lender and his tender was not genuine. Anchalik Panchayat authorities enquired into this a spect of the matter and found that the signature of respondent No. 7 appearing i n the tender document differed from the signature subsequently made. Therefore, Anchalik Panchayat had rejected the tender of respondent No. 7. In such circumst ances, impugned order of settlement with respondent No. 7 cannot be justified. Respondent No. 3, i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad has filed affidavit. Stand taken is that Standing Committee of Mandia Anchalik Panchayat decided to cancel tender of respondent No. 7 on the ground of forged signature w ithout referring the matter to appropriate authority to decide genuineness of si gnature. Hence, Standing Committee of Barpeta Zilla Parishad did not agree with the decision of the Anchalik Panchayat and decided to settle the Parghat in favo ur of respondent No. 7 being the highest valid bidder. Though the State respondents have not filed affidavit, record has been produced. Respondent No. 7 in his affidavit denied the allegation of the petitioner that t ender submitted by him is not genuine. He was the highest valid tenderer and, th erefore, the settling authority was justified in making the settlement with him. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Theref ore, it is considered not necessary for a detailed narration of the submissions made.
Decision
A perusal of the record indicates that Mandia Anchalik Panchayat had rejected th e tender of respondent No. 7 on the ground that his signature as appearing in th e tender did not tally with his signature subsequently made on being asked for b y the Anchalik Panchayat. It was stated that complaint was received that signatu re of respondent No. 7 was not genuine for which he was asked to put his signatu re subsequently. On a comparison of the two signatures, no resemblance was found . Accordingly, tender of respondent No. 7 was rejected. However, before the Barp eta Zilla Parishad, it was decided to settle the Parghat with respondent No. 7. In the proceedings held on 17.07.2013, Barpeta Zilla Parishad adopted resolution that since Anchalik Panchayat had rejected the tender of respondent no. 7 witho ut referring the matter regarding genuineness of signature to forensic science l aboratory, such decision was not acceptable. Accordingly, it was resolved that t ill it is proved by appropriate authority that signature of respondent No. 7 is forged or not genuine, he should be given the settlement being the highest bidde r. View taken by the Barpeta Zilla Parishad is not acceptable. Anchalik Panchayat w as not examining the signature of respondent No. 7 to establish any criminality. It was an administrative decision as to whether on the basis of two admittedly different signatures of respondent No. 7, his tender should be accepted. Anchali k Panchayat authorities had asked respondent No. 7 to sign on the tender documen t again subsequently in their presence. When he put his signature, the same was compared with the signature appearing in the tender document. Anchalik Panchayat found that the two signatures did not tally at all, which gave rise to doubt ab out the genuineness of the tender of respondent No. 7. In such circumstances, it was decided not to accept the tender of respondent No. 7 as valid. Such a cours e of action adopted by the Anchalik Panchayat was justified and the contrary vie w taken by the Zilla Parishad does not appeal to the Court. I have perused the tender documents available in the record including the tender submitted by respondent No.7 having the two different signatures. From the seco nd signature, one gets the impression that respondent No. 7 was not capable of f illing up an entire tender form. On such basis, Anchalik Panchayat was justified in taking the view that tender of respondent No. 7 should not be accepted. Thus , I am of the view that decision of the Zilla Parishad overruling the decision o f Anchalik Panchayat is not justified. Having regard to the above, impugned settlement order dated 19.07.2013 is hereby set aside and quashed. Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad shall no w issue fresh settlement order to the next highest valid tenderer for the remain ing term of settlement. Writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Beep Judge