Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 66 (GAU)

Jabed Ali v. State of Assam

2002-02-05

AMITAVA ROY, R.S.MONGIA

body2002
R.S. MONGIA, CJ. — This judgment and order will dispose of both WA Nos. 30/2002 and 478/2001 as these arise out of one common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2001 disposing of WP(C) Nos. 6631/2001 and 6632/2001. 2. In these appeals we are concerned with the settlement of Rupahihat Weekly Market for the period 2001-2002. It is admitted on all hands that the settlements of Rupahihat Weekly Market with which we are concerned here is to last upto 30th June, 2002. 3. Rupahihat Anchalik Panchayat had floated a tender on 25.4.2001 inviting bids for the settlement of the Weekly Market as stated above. There were large number of bidders and ultimately the market was settled in favour of Abdul Kalam (respondent in the W.P.). His bid was Rs.1,80,000/- per month. This settlement was challenged by Jabed Ali by filing WP(C) 6631/2001. It was also challenged by one Shri Ramjan Ali by filing WP(C) 6632/2001. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2001 by a common judgment. The settlement in favour of Abdul Kalam, who was respondent No. 6 in the Writ Petition No. 6631/2001 was set aside. It was also observed that Jabed Ali, the writ petitioner in the other writ petition was an irregular bidder as there was some defect in submission of his bid. The learned Single Judge after quashing the settlement in favour of Abdul Kalam observed as under:- "... The matter is remitted back to the respondents to make settlement and pass necessary orders by considering all the regular bidders only. As the period of settlement will be over by June/2002 it is provided that the respondents shall complete the process within three weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner Ramjan Ali." 4. Abdul Kalam as well as Jabed Ali have filed the present Writ Appeal Nos. 30/2002 and 478/2001. While admitting these appeals status quo was ordered to be maintained so far as running of the market is concerned and therefore the Anchalik Panchayat itself is running the market. 5. So far as the appellant Jabed Ali is concerned, it may be observed here that his bid was held to be irregular on the ground that the value of the land of the guarantor was less than the bid money. 5. So far as the appellant Jabed Ali is concerned, it may be observed here that his bid was held to be irregular on the ground that the value of the land of the guarantor was less than the bid money. The bid was for Rs.23 lacs and odd whereas the value of the land of the guarantor was about Rs. 15 lacs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that if his bid was to be accepted I/ 4th of the bicj money was to be deposited within 7 days of the acceptance of the bid as security and further the bidder whose bid is accepted is required to pay advance quarterly instalment of the bid money before running of the market. Accordingly, he argued that by this method before actually starting the market 50% bid money gets deposited with the authorities before the start of the market and therefore the guarantors land of the value of Rs.15 lacs was sufficient security. 7. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Firstly, the 25% bid money to be deposited by the person is towards security. Security ipso facto cannot be adjusted towards instalment if there is a default. Certain conditions are to be fulfilled before the security can be appropriated towards any default or outstanding payment. Secondly, the object behind having a guarantor is that he should be solvent enough to pay the entire bid money if such an eventuality occurs and not as per the calculations suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The valuation of the guarantor's land was much less than the bid money and consequently we do not find any infirmity in the authorities holding that his bid was irregular. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 30/2002 is hereby dismissed. 8. So far as the other appeal filed by Abdul Kalam is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's bid was not irregular but was rather regular. He submitted that the ground for holding that the appellant's bid was irregular is not well founded. His bid was held to be irregular by the respondent authorities on the ground that the guarantor had not furnished 'no dues certificate' from the concerned Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat, Mahkuma Parishad and Co-operative Society. He submitted that the ground for holding that the appellant's bid was irregular is not well founded. His bid was held to be irregular by the respondent authorities on the ground that the guarantor had not furnished 'no dues certificate' from the concerned Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat, Mahkuma Parishad and Co-operative Society. Learned counsel argued that the guarantor of the appellant is a resident of a town and therefore he had submitted a certificate from the concerned municipality regarding no dues. The argument proceeded that if the guarantor is not a resident of a village, the question of his submitting certificate from the aforesaid Authorities like Gaon Panchayat etc. would not arise; he being a resident of a town covered by municipality. It will be the municipality which would give such a certificate of 'no dues' which would be good enough to become a guarantor. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the whole scheme of running and settlement of the weekly market is that the villagers of the area may be able to run the market and it necessarily follows that the bidders as well as the guarantor should not be defaulters to the institutions like the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat, Mahkuma Parishad and Co-operative Society as these are the institutions concerned with the welfare of the villagers. We are of the opinion that the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents are well founded. A resident of a town can in certain circumstances be a defaulter of any of the institutions mentioned above, i.e., Gaon Panchayat, Co-operative Society etc. The object seems to be that the bidder and the guarantor should not be defaulters of any one of the institutions referred to above. There is no bar for a resident of a town to get a 'no dues certificate' from the institutions referred to above. As a matter of abundant caution, we make it clear that, whereever certificate from the Gaon Panchayat is required, it would be the Gaon Panchayat of the area where the market is supposed to run and so would be the Co-operative Society. 9. Admittedly, in the'present case, the appellant's guarantor had submitted a 'no dues certificate' from the concerned municipality, where he resides. However, the certificate from the other institutions mentioned above were not furnished. 9. Admittedly, in the'present case, the appellant's guarantor had submitted a 'no dues certificate' from the concerned municipality, where he resides. However, the certificate from the other institutions mentioned above were not furnished. Technically speaking, the respondents were well within their rights, in view of what has been observed above, to hold that the appellant was an irregular bidder. However, the question that remains to be answered is - were the requirements in the notice inviting bids, so clear and unambiguous that the view taken by the appellant that thr certificate from municipality so far guarantor is concerned would amount to due compliance, is not plausible or no reasonable man would think in these terms? It seems that the interpretation put by the appellant was a plausible view. It is only after going deeper into the matter that we are holding that the certificate from the institutions referred to above are also required to be given even though the guarantor may be a resident of a town. 10. Should under these circumstances, the appellant be ousted from consideration or reasonable time should be given to him even now to comply with the requirements as interpreted by us? We are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is given one week's time to submit the requisite certificate issued by the aforesaid institutions so that his bid is not held irregular on this ground. If he submits such documents then the official authorities would consider the settlement of the market in accordance with law for the rest of the period from amongst the regular bidders within one week of the submission of the documents by the appellant. If within one week the appellant fails to submit the documents as aforesaid, the official respondents would go ahead for consideration of the matter regarding settlement of the market from amongst the rest of the regular bidders. The appeal (W.A. 478/2001) stands disposed of in the above terms and directions. 11. Before parting with this judgment and order, we may observe here that if the appellant applies for 'no dues certificate', Gaon Panchayat of the area, Co-operative Society of the area, Anchalik Panchayat and Mahkuma Parishad, the same be furnished expeditiously but not later than 2 days of the application. 12. 11. Before parting with this judgment and order, we may observe here that if the appellant applies for 'no dues certificate', Gaon Panchayat of the area, Co-operative Society of the area, Anchalik Panchayat and Mahkuma Parishad, the same be furnished expeditiously but not later than 2 days of the application. 12. Till the aforesaid directions are complied with, the status quo regarding running of the market as it exists today shall continue. 13. A copy of this judgment and order, attested by Bench Assistant, be given to the counsel for the parties.