High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4040/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Respon dent No.9 is represented by Advocate Mr. S.S. Dey while Advocate Mr. P. Sarma re presents Respondent No.8 (settlement holder). The learned Govt. Advocate Mr. J. Handique represents the State respondents. 2. The matter pertains to settlement of the Missamari Weekly Market, for wh ich tender notice was issued on 20.04.2013 (Annexure-A) by the Secretary, In-cha rge of the Chaiduar Anchalik Panchayat. The bid of the highest tenderer Bijoy A nand Singha was found to be defective and accordingly the petitioner’s bid of Rs .21,11,000/- was the highest valid bid amongst the 14 tenders. The General Stand ing Committee after scrutinization of the tenders, granted settlement of the Mis samari Weekly Market to the petitioner through the order dated 29.06.2013 (Annex ure-C). But a complaint was filed by an aggrieved co-tenderer Ahiram Das (Respo ndent No.8) and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 1st July, 2013 (Anne xure-D), whereby the settlement granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the p urported basis that his tender papers were not sufficient and not correct and co nsequently, the Market was resettled with the complainant Ahiram Das (Respondent No.8). Representing the aggrieved settlement holder, Mr. N. Borah, learned coun 3. sel submits that the cancellation was without any basis since the petitioner was granted settlement because his tender was found to be adequate and correct. He projects that petitioner’s guarantor was one Gunaram Kalita and the guarantor’s 6 bigha 10 lecha land under Dag No.197 and Patta No.30 of Tangana village of Ga hpur Mouza, valued at Rs.5 lakh per bigha was offered as land surety for the mar ket in question and therefore he argues that this was sufficient surety for the settling authorities. At this stage, it may be appropriate to take note of the fact that the p 4. etitioner was also granted settlement of the Kauripathar Weekly Market under the same NIT of the Chaiduar Anchalik Panchayat and the Govt. value notified in the NIT for the 2 markets was Rs.6,94,350/- (Missamari Weekly Market) and Rs.2,66,3 00/- (Kauripathar Weekly Market) respectively. For the 2 markets, the petitione r’s bid was Rs.21,11,000/- and Rs.3,11,551.51 and accordingly the tenderer conte nds that the land surety offered by his guarantor Gunaram Kalita was sufficient to protect the interest of the settling authority, in the event of any default by the settlement holder. Projecting that the settlement granted to the petitioner of the Missamar 5. i Weekly Market was cancelled only to confer undue benefit to the complainant Ah iram Das (Respondent No.8), Mr. Borah submits that if the petitioner’s tender is to be rejected, the next highest valid bidder Bikash Bora with a bid value of R s.18,21,999/- should have been the logical choice of the settling authority but the resettlement was undeservingly granted to the complainant at his lower bid of Rs.15,81,999/-. 6. Mr. J. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate has the records of the Sonitpur Zilla Parishad leading to issuance of the cancellation order dated 01.07.2013 (A nnexure-D) and the resettlement of the Market with the Respondent No.8 Ahiram Da s. But these records according to the Govt. Advocate doesn’t disclose why the Zi lla Parishad decided that the petitioner’s tender was insufficient and incorrect . Moreover, the settlement records do not reflect any reason why the Zilla Pari shad bypassed the next highest bidder Bikash Bora to give settlement to the comp lainant Ahiram Das (Respondent No.8). 7. The present settlement holder is represented by advocate Mr. P. Sarma an d he submits that since the petitioner’s tender was insufficient, the Zilla Pari shad rightly cancelled the earlier settlement and resettled the market with the Respondent No.8, who was vigorously pursuing his complaint before the settling a uthority. 8. Representing the CEO, Zila Parishad (Respondent no.9), Advocate Mr. S.S. Dey submits that the Jamabandi of the land offered as surety by the petitioner contained names of several other pattadars apart from the name of the guarantor Gunaram Kalita and therefore Mr. Dey explains that the settling authority consid ered the tender of the petitioner to be incorrect. To test the bonafide of this explanation of the CEO, if one scrutinizes the Jamabandi produced by the petitio ner, what is clearly discernible is that Gunaram Kalita is the original pattadar of the land spread across several dags, including the Dag No.197. The 3 other pattadars whose names are mentioned in the Jamabandi namely, Champak Mahanta, Go pal Kakati and Jotika Bhuyan had purchased land from Gunaram Kalita and signific antly Gunaram Kalita didn’t sale any land under Dag No.197 and the transferred l ands were under Dag No.221 and 220 and this is how the 3 purchasers names were m utated in the revenue records against Dag Nos.221 and 220 and not Dag No.197. L and only under Dag No.197 was offered by the guarantor Gunaram Kalita and the re venue records clearly show that the other 3 persons whose names are reflected in the Jamabandi has no connection with the lands under Dag No.197, which measures 6 bigha 10 lecha. Therefore, the petitioner’s tender couldn’t be considered i nsufficient on this count since the value of the offered land was far higher tha n the Govt. value of the settled markets. On the projected plea of the settling authority that land under one dag 9. cannot be accepted as surety for 2 markets, it is the value of land that should be the determinative factor or in other words, whether the offered land value is enough to protect the interest of the settling authority, in the event the less ee defaults in any manner. The price of each bigha under Dag No.197 was assesse d at Rs.5 lakh and the guarantor Gunaram Kalita offered 1 bigha 1 katha 5 lecha land valued at Rs.7.5 lakh for the Kauripathar Weekly Market and 3 bighas land v alued at Rs.15 lakh for the Missamari Weekly Market. The Govt. value of these 2 markets was notified as Rs.2,66,300/- and Rs.6,94,350/- and therefore it is ap parent that land of adequate value was offered as surety by the tenderer. Merel y because the offered land was covered by a single Dag No. i.e. 197 and separate lands under different dags were not offered by the tenderer, this by itself in my view, cannot be a justification for considering the tender of the petitioner to be insufficient or incorrect. 10. The petitioner as the highest valid bidder was rightly settled with the Missamari Weekly Market under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rul es, 2002, which requires the settlement to be given to the highest bidder unless prior and formal approval is granted by the Government for settlement to a lowe r bidder. Therefore, in the absence of prior government approval under Rule 47(1 0), it must be held that resettlement granted to the 4th highest bidder Ahiram D as (Respondent no.8) is illegal and is not in conformity with the settlement no rms. 11. Moreover, if it is to be assumed for the sake of argument that the petit ioner’s tender was defective, the market should have been settled with the next highest bidder in the fray namely Bikash Bora, whose bid of Rs.18,21,999/-, alth ough lower than the petitioner, was certainly higher than the Respondent No.8. But since the Respondent No.8 was preferred despite being 4th lowest bidder, the impugned order of 1st July, 2013 (Annexure-D) appears to be illegal and the sam e can’t be sustained. Consequently, since the decision of the Sonitpur Zilla Parishad leading 12. to issuance of the impugned order dated 1st July, 2013 (Annexure-D) is found to be illegal, the same is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the earlier settle ment order of 29.06.2013 (Annexure-C) stands revived. The respondents are accord ingly directed to allow the petitioner to collect tolls from the Missamari Weekl y Market for the duration of the settlement order. 13. The case stands allowed with the above order. No costs.