High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4119/2013 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (CAV)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. T.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J .Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr.M.Phukan, learned co unsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. har Anchalik Panchayat in Tinsukia district for the year 2013-14. Matter relates to settlement of Bordumsa Weekly Market under Kakapat 3. Executive Officer, Kakapathar Anchalik Panchayat issued Tender Notice da ted 29.5.2013 inviting sealed tenders for settlement of various markets within its jurisdiction for the year 2013-14. The markets included Bordumsa Weekly Mar ket. The Government rate for the said market was fixed at Rs.5,51,000.00. 4. Petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Te nder( NIT). Tenders were opened on 13.6.2013. It was found that as many as 32 te nderers had submitted tenders. Highest bid was of one Pranab Sonowal at Rs. 14, 45,000.00. Bid offered by the petitioner at Rs. 13,57,771.00 was the 4th highes t. Respondent No.4 offered Rs.7,50,000.00 only, which was 29th in the list of bidders. 5. According to the petitioner, his bid was valid in all respects. The 3 highest bidders above him were no longer interested in getting settlement of the market and, therefore, petitioner being the 4th highest bidder, was expecting settlement of the market in his favour. However, Chief Executive Officer, Tinsu kia Zila Parishad( respondent No.2) issued order dated 5.7.2013 settling the mar ket with respondent No.4 at his bid value of Rs. 7,50,000.00. 6. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging th e legality and validity of the aforesaid order dated 5.7.2013 and seeking a dire ction to the respondents to settle the market for the year 2013-14 with him. 7. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit. In his affidavit, he has stated that the highest bidder at Sl. No.1 did not respond within the prescribed perio d. Bid value of 2nd and 3rd highest bidders being the same, the matter was refe rred to the Standing Committee, which opined to decide the matter by drawing lo ttery. But as there is no provision for lottery in the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 , the matter was referred back to the Standing Committee. After due consideratio n, Standing Committee decided to settle the market with respondent No.4 on 4.7.2 013. It is stated that bid value of the petitioner is very high as compared to t he Government value. Market is situated in a remote area where financial condit ion of the local people is also not very sound. Settlement at such a high value may lead to realization of higher tolls by the lessee, which may have an adverse impact on the traders. Bid value of respondent No.4 is comparable to the settle ment value for last 3 years which are as under :- i) 2010-11 - ii) 2011-12 - Rs.7,61,000.00 iii) 2012-13 - Rs.6,70,000.00 Rs.6,50,000.00 Accordingly, it was decided to settle the market with respondent No.4 at a slig htly higher value than the Government value. Thereafter, settlement order was i ssued on 5.7.2013. Respondent No.4 had taken over charge of the market on 5.7.20 13 itself by depositing full amount at Tinsukia Zila Parishad office. Market is presently being run by respondent No.4. 8. Respondent No.4 in his affidavit has stated that after the market was s ettled with him, he has taken over charge and is presently operating the market . 9. ounter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner whereafter additional c 10. From a perusal of the record, which has been produced by the learned G overnment Advocate, more particularly, the comparative statement prepared by th e Anchalik Panchayat, it is seen that initially the General Standing Committee had decided to settle the market with the highest bidder Sri Pranab Sonowal at h is quoted value of Rs.14,45,000.00 but Sri Pranab Sonowal had in the meanwhile withdrawn his tender. Thereafter, the General Standing Committee decided not to settle the market with the bidders who quoted higher value than the Governmen t value. The Government value was Rs.5,51,000.00 and the last year’s settlemen t amount was Rs.6,70,000.00. Therefore, the Committee decided to settle the ma rket with respondent No.4 at his offered value of Rs.7,50,000.00, which is sligh tly higher than the Government value and the earlier settlement value. 11. Thus, from the comparative statement and the affidavit of respondent N o.2, it is evident that settlement has not been made with the highest bidder. Pr imary reason given for such deviation is that settlement at higher value would l ead to charging of higher tolls by the lessee which may cause hardship to the p ublic in general and to the traders in particular. 12. Rule 47 (1) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 clearly provides that tender of the highest bidder shall be accepted and that acceptan ce of tender other than the highest bid shall require prior and formal approval of the Government. A perusal of the record does not indicate that any such pr ior and formal approval of the Government was obtained before settling the ma rket with respondent No.4, who is admittedly not the highest bidder. Rather, he is one of the lowest bidders. 13. In Lila Borah vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2006)1 GLR 445 , this Court had repelled the argument advanced by the Municipal Board that ac ceptance of higher bid would put more financial burden on the traders inasmuch as the lessee is permitted and allowed to collect tolls which is fixed by the Municipality itself. A trader or a lessee is not entitled to demand anything b eyond such rate as fixed by the Municipality. It was thus held that apprehension of excessive taxation upon traders by the lessee was not based on any valid reason and was totally unfounded. In the said judgment, it was further held th at settlement of market etc. is one of major sources of revenue of the Municipal ity and accordingly, it should normally make settlement of market at the best a vailable price. The same principle would be equally applicable to Panchayats. Mo reover, the record does not disclose or indicate why bid of respondent No.4 was accepted and not the other bids in the similar range. 14. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, impugned settlement of market with respondent No.4 vide order dated 5.7.2013 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. 15. Matter is remanded back to the Tinsukia Zila Parishad for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.