High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3388/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner, who was the highest bidder in respect of Garubandha weekly marke t, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by th e Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad, Tezpur settling the aforesaid weekly market in favour of the second highest bidder namely, Jatin Boro, respon dent No. 5 at his offered bid of Rs. 3,27,000/- for a period of one year i.e. fr om 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013. 2. The petitioner has challenged the said order of settlement on th e ground that though he was the highest valid bidder, the settlement, instead of him, was made in favour of the respondent No. 5, the second highest bidder with out any justification though sub Rule 10 of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Fina ncial) Rules, 2002 (for short the 2002 Rules) requires acceptance of the highest bidder and in the event of non acceptance Govt.’s prior and formal approval is required.
Legal Reasoning
3. I have heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Ms Dutta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not contested the proceeding despite servic e. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the grounds taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad in the affi davits-in-opposition filed, has submitted that since there is no requirement of making the security deposit before the order of settlement is made, which deposi t is required to be made within 7 days from the date of issuance of the order of settlement, the authority ought not to have rejected the bid of the petitioner and settled the market in favour of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner along with the tender document did not submit the security deposit, t hough the petitioner admittedly deposited the earnest money. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of settlement made in favour of the r espondent No. 5 by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad on 29.6.2 012 requires to be interfered with, and the direction may be issued to settle th e market with the petitioner for the remaining period, at the proportionate rate offered by the petitioner. 5. Ms Dutta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos . 1, 2 and 3, supporting the impugned order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Office, Sonitpur Zila Parishad and referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that as the petitioner’s bid was foun d to be defective on the ground of non submission of the security money along wi th the bid document though the petitioner was the highest bidder the settlement could not be offered to him. 6. It appears from the records that the President, Dhekiajuli Ancha lik Panchayat issued the NIT on 20.4.2012 inviting bids for settlement of variou s markets including Garubandha weekly market for the panchayat year i.e. from 1. 7.2012 to 30.6.2013 with the minimum bid value of Rs. 3,25,785/- and fixing the earnest money at Rs.6516/-, with the condition that the bid document is to be pr ocured from the office of the Anchalik Panchayat on payment of Rs. 100/- and the bid is to be submitted in such bid document, and in no other document, along wi th the earnest money by means of a bank draft. Altogether six persons submitted their bids including the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. While the petition er has offered Rs. 5, 55,000/- the respondent No. 5 has offered Rs. 3,27,000/-. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 have deposited the earnest money as stipulated in the NIT. The bid offered by the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were found to be the highest and the second highest, respectively. 7. It appears from the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respon dent No. 3 that though the petitioner’s offer was found to be the highest, the s ettlement was not offered on the ground of non deposit of the security money alo ng with the tender documents, which was the sole ground on which the petitioner’ s bid was rejected and consequently the settlement was made in favour of the res pondent No. 5 at his bid value of Rs. 3,27,000/-. 8. Sub Rule 11 of Rule 47 of the 2002 Rules provides for making the security deposit by the selected tenderer within seven days from the date of is suance of the acceptance letter. The NIT issued by the President of the Dhekiaju li Anchalik Panchayat also did not require deposit of the security money along w ith the tender paper. 9. It also appears from the order of settlement dated 29.6.2012 set tling the market in favour of the respondent No. 5 that the security deposit is to be made only within seven days. It is, therefore, evident that there was no r equirement of making the security deposit along with the tender papers. Hence th e ground on which the tender of the petitioner was found to be defective and con sequently no order of settlement was passed in his favour, is not sustainable in law.
Decision
10. In view of the above, the order of settlement issued on 29.6.201 2 by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zila Parishad settling the Garubandha weekly market in favour of the respondent No. 5 is set aside. The Chief Executi ve Officer is directed to issue the order of settlement of the said market for t he remaining period up to 30.6.2013 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner’ s tender having been valid in all respect, who shall deposit the security money within seven days from the date of communication of the order of settlement. 11. The necessary order shall be passed by the Chief Executive Offic er within one week from the date of production of the certified copy of this jud gment and order by the petitioner before him. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.