Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 609 (GAU)

Motior Rahman v. State of Assam

2008-08-18

I.A.ANSARI

body2008
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Pursuant to a notice, dated 30.5.2008, issued by Respondent No. 3, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad, Bongaigaon, inviting tenders for settlement of Lengitishinga Daily Market, the Petitioner too participated in the tender process and his offer was found to be not only valid, but also the highest, his offered value being Rs. 1,41,575. Respondent No. 3, however, settled the said market with the Respondent No. 4, i.e., the private Respondent herein, on an offered value of Rs. 1,11,000. The Petitioner's grievance is that though he was the highest valid tenderer, the market was not settled with him and, instead thereof, the market was settled in favour of the Respondent No. 4 by the Respondent No. 3 without obtaining prior and formal approval of the Government as is required under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002. 2. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. A. Matin, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent No. 4. 3. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was found to be the highest valid tenderer and yet the market has been settled in favour of the Respondent No. 4 at a bid value, which was lower than what was offered by the Petitioner. The short question therefore, which falls for determination, is this: whether settlement of the market, in question, in favour of the Petitioner can be treated as valid despite the fact that before making the settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 4, no approval, as envisaged by Rule 47(10) of the said Rules, was obtained from the Government. 4. In Nagaon Zilla Parishad, Nagaon v. Ms. Rezia Begum and Ors., 2006 1 GLT 585, a Division Bench of this Court has made it clear that under Sub-rule (10) of Rule 47 of the said Rules, acceptance of tender, other than highest bid, shall require prior and formal approval of the Government. It has also been made clear, in Ms. Rezia Begum (supra), that on plain reading of the Rule, highest bidder is entitled to settlement of market in his favour unless a different decision is taken by the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad with prior and formal approval of the Government. It has also been made clear, in Ms. Rezia Begum (supra), that on plain reading of the Rule, highest bidder is entitled to settlement of market in his favour unless a different decision is taken by the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad with prior and formal approval of the Government. The Standing Committee of Zilla Parishad has the authority to accept tender submitted by any of the tenderers, but if the acceptance is not in favour of the highest bidder, then, acceptance of the lower bid, or any bid," other than the highest valid bidder, would be subject to Government's prior and formal approval. 5. In the present case, as already indicated above, there is no dispute that the Petitioner was the highest bidder and, in such a situation, the market ought to have been settled in his favour. If, however, Respondent No. 3 wanted settlement to be made in favour of the Respondent No. 4, then the Government's prior and formal approval ought to have been taken. No such approval having been taken, the settlement, made in favour, of the Respondent No. 4, is not only in violation of law, but arbitrary too. Situated thus, this Court has no option, but to interfere with the impugned order of settlement, dated 30.6.2008, aforementioned. 6. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the impugned order of settlement, dated 30.6.2008, passed in favour of the Respondent No. 4 by the Respondent No. 3, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad, Bongaigaon, is hereby set aside and quashed. The State Respondents, i.e., Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are hereby left at liberty to make settlement in accordance with law pursuant to the notice inviting tender, dated 30.5.2008, aforementioned. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of.