Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A lso heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel, who appears for the official respond ents. Advocates for the Respondent No.7 are not present, although their names a re reflected in the cause list.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure-V), where by the settlement of the Hatidhura Go-hat was granted to Nur Mahammad Sheikh (re spondent No.7) by the Dhubri Zilla Parishad. Earlier the Hatidhura Anchalik Pan chayat on 21.06.2013 (Annexure-II) resolved to accept the 3rd highest bid of Rs. 9,09,999/- of the petitioner, since the highest bidder withdrew and the 2nd high est bidder Nur Mahammad Sheikh (Respondent No.7) had given deficient earnest mon ey of Rs.24,900/- (instead of the required Rs.1,98,444/-) as was specified in th e NIT dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure-I).

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Dhubri Zilla Parisha d on 05.09.2013, where it is averred that the bid of the Respondent No.7 was acc epted in the interest of higher revenue by permitting him to subsequently deposi t the deficient earnest money. Therefore, it is apparent that the Respondent No .7 failed to provide due earnest money as per the tender requirement.

Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel refers to the decision in Tata Cellula r Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and also the decision of this court in Bijulibari Multipurpose Development Society Vs. State of Assam reported in 2003 (3) GLT 503 to argue that full earnest money is required to be furnishe d with the tender as otherwise, the tender will be defective.

Here, the tender submitted by the Respondent No.7 cannot be considered v alid as he failed to deposit the full earnest money of Rs.1,98,444/-. This is co nfirmed in the counter affidavit filed by the Dhubri Zilla Parishad. That apart , despite opportunities granted to the Respondent No.7, he has not explained the deficiency of the earnest money when he submitted the tender. In the above circumstances and having regard to the ratio in Tata Cellul 6. ar (Supra) and the Bijulibari Multipurpose Development Society (supra), I am of the view that the tender with deficient earnest money should not have been consi dered for settlement. Accordingly, I find sufficient merit in the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure-V), whereby the settlement of the Hatidhura Go-hat was granted to the defective tenderer (Respondent No.7). C onsequently, the impugned order of settlement order dated 24.07.2013 is held to be invalid and the same is accordingly quashed.

Therefore, since the period of settlement is up to 30.06.2014, the settl ing authority should reconsider the valid tenders and issue a fresh settlement o rder. This must be done expeditiously and preferably within 3 weeks of receipt of intimation from the petitioner.

The case accordingly stands allowed with the above direction without any order on cost.