Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 241 (GAU)

Birkhang Boro v. State of Assam

2005-03-18

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for setting aside and quashing of the tender process initiated in respect of the Sand and Stone Mahal in question. 2. The basic facts as narrated in the writ petition are that pursuant to the Short Sale Notice published in the newspaper on 10.9.2002 inviting tenders for sale of the Pollanadi Sand & Stone Mahal (Annexure-1) for the period of 2002-04, the petitioner submitted his tender. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the comparative statement prepared by the respondents, he was the 4th highest bidder with the offer of an amount of Rs. 5,45,000. According to the petitioner, the three bidders above him declined to pursue their offer and, thus, it was his legitimate expectation that he would get the settlement of the mahal. However, same was not to be. 3. When the matter rested as above, the respondent No. 4 issued tender notice on 7.10.2003 for sale of the said mahal for the period of 2003-05. According to the petitioner, the tender notice neither published in any newspaper nor notified in any other sufficient manner so as he enable to intending tenderers like the petitioner to participate in the tender process. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid tender process, the respondent No. 5 emerged as highest bidder and the respondents took steps to make settlement of the mahal with the respondent No. 5. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed. 5. The respondents, although have not filed any counter affidavits have produced the records through the learned State Counsel. The records produced by the learned State Counsel have made the following revelations : 3.9.2002 : The mahal in question was advertised for sale for the period 2002-04. 10.9.2002 : NIT published in the newspaper fixing the last date as 4.10.2002 4.10.2002 : The petitioners submitted tender. 7.11.2002 : Comparative statement alongwith other documents were sent to the Conservator of Forests. 21.1.2003 : Final Settlement order was issued to the highest bidder. However, he did not respond. The 1st and 2nd highest bidder submitted petition withdrawing their tenders. 20.8.2003 : The 3rd and 4th bidders were requested to attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officer. However, they did not do so. 21.1.2003 : Final Settlement order was issued to the highest bidder. However, he did not respond. The 1st and 2nd highest bidder submitted petition withdrawing their tenders. 20.8.2003 : The 3rd and 4th bidders were requested to attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officer. However, they did not do so. 7.10.2003 : Re-sale notice was issued and published in the Range offices and Beat offices with a copy to the Chief Conservator of Forests (T) and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam fixing 27.1.2003. 25.5.2004 : The mahal as settled with the highest bidder, i.e., the respondent No. 5. The settlement was made proviseionally. 5.7.2004 : The mahal was finally settled with the respondent No. 5 and he deposited the kist money, etc. 22.8.2004 : After execution of the agreement, the mahal was handed over to the respondent No. 5. 6. It appears that the Government value of the mahal was fixed at Rs. 1,55,000 for the stipulated quantity of sand and stone which stood at 1,000 and 1,500 cum respectively. 7. I have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Mahanta, learned State Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Bhuyan, on the basis of the facts narrated in the writ petition submitted that the sale notice having not been published in newspaper, the entire process of settlement was vitiated. Referring to the provisions of Rule 4 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 (as amended in the year 2000) for sale/re-sale of any mahal, Mr. Bhuyan submitted that the conditions precedent towards publication of the resale notice being absent, the re-sale notice dated 7.10.2003 could not have been issued. He submitted that in fact a sale notice ought to have been issued with due publication in the newspaper. Referring to the writ petition being WP(C) No. 8258/2004 (Sri Charan Machahary v. State of Assam and Ors.) Mr. Bhuyan, submitted that the judgment to be delivered in the said writ petition would govern the present case. 8. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned State Counsel countering the above arguments made by Mr. Bhuyan, submitted on the basis of the records produced by him, that as per the proviso to Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules, there is no requirement of publication of re-sale notice in newspaper. 8. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned State Counsel countering the above arguments made by Mr. Bhuyan, submitted on the basis of the records produced by him, that as per the proviso to Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules, there is no requirement of publication of re-sale notice in newspaper. He submitted that due publicity was given to the re-sale notice and the petitioner ought to have responded to the same, if at all he was interested. 9. The issue raised in the writ petition has already been discussed in the aforesaid case of Sri Charan Machahary. It has been held that in the event of issuance of re-sale notice, there is no requirement of publication of the same in the newspaper. 10. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that a re-sale notice can only be issued in the facts circumstances mentioned in Rule 17 of the rules has also been taken care of in the said judgment. However, even if the said argument is accepted, there cannot be any interference in issuing re-sale notice in the instant case. As noticed above, the sale notice already published in newspaper on 10.9.2002 was acted upon and the final settlement was made in favour of the highest bidder. However, when the said highest bidder and 2nd highest bidder did not came forward, the 3rd and 4th highest bidders were requested to attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officer which they refused. Thus on default on the part of the highest bidder, the resale notice was issued on 2.10.2003. In such circumstances, there was no necessity to publish the same in the newspaper. Even otherwise also, the issue has been discussed and decided in the aforesaid case of Sri Charan Machahary holding that in the event of issuance of a re-sale notice in continuation of the earlier sale notice published in the newspaper, there is no necessity to publish the resale notice once again in the newspaper. It has been held that as per the proviso to rule 4 of the Rules, there is no necessity to publish the re-sale notice in the newspaper. 11. As regards the plea of not giving wide publicity to the re-sale notice, I find from the records that such a plea raised by the petitioner is not tenable. It has been held that as per the proviso to rule 4 of the Rules, there is no necessity to publish the re-sale notice in the newspaper. 11. As regards the plea of not giving wide publicity to the re-sale notice, I find from the records that such a plea raised by the petitioner is not tenable. The records have revealed that due publication was given in respect of the re-sale notice as indicated above. Thus, on this count also the petitioner cannot make any grievance. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition fails on both counts. Writ petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.