Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 666 (GAU)

Edward Kramsa v. Karbianglong Autonomous Council

2015-06-02

B.K.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : ” Both the writ petitions pertaining to settlement of Entry Tax Gate have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. While in WP(C) No. 1623/2015, the Entry Tax Gate involve is Lahorijan NH-36 Entry Tax Gate, in the other writ petition being WP(C) No. 1685/2015, the Entry Tax Gate involved is Parokhowa NH-26 Entry Tax Gate. Both the petitioners had responded to the NIT dated 03/02/2015 by which BIDs were invited for settlement of the Entry Tax Gates. Their tenders were considered along with the others and the Tender Committee having settled the Entry Tax Gates with the private respondents vide the impugned order dated 16/03/2015, they have challenged the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. 2. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 and Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1623/2015. I have also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC and also Mr. D. Das, learned counsel representing the private respondents in both the writ petitions. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records produced by Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC. 3. There is no dispute that while the petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1623/2015, did not submit the Tax Clearance Certificate along with the tender papers, there is also no dispute that the petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 did not submit Land Revenue Clearance Certificate (LRCC) along with his tenders. In this connection, the relevant tender conditions may be referred to which are as follows : ' 1. (a) The tenderers must furnish professional Tax Clearance Certificate valid up to 31/03/2015. (b) Trading Licence duly renewed up to 31/12/2015 must be furnished by non-tribal tenderers. The tendereres belonging to Scheduled Tribe (Hills) must furnish Caste Certificate in lieu of Trading Licence. (d) The tenderers must furnish AVAT/Sales Tax Clearance Certificate, valid up to 31/03/2015. 2. The tenderers must furnish Land Revenue Clearance Certificate valid up to 31/12/2014. 3. to 6. 7. The authority of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council reserves the right of settlement of any market/Entry tax gate/Fishery/ghat/Cattle pond at the highest rate.' 4. The petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1623/2015 had offered bid amount of Rs. 2. The tenderers must furnish Land Revenue Clearance Certificate valid up to 31/12/2014. 3. to 6. 7. The authority of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council reserves the right of settlement of any market/Entry tax gate/Fishery/ghat/Cattle pond at the highest rate.' 4. The petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1623/2015 had offered bid amount of Rs. 47,01,550/- and the petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 with the bid value of Rs. 1,01,60,780/-. As against the aforesaid bid amount offered by the petitioners, the private respondents offered bid value of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 71,88,250/- respectively. According to the respondents, although the petitioners offered highest bid value but their tenders being defective, the same could not be accepted and consequently upon rejection of their tenders along with others on the same ground, the respective Entry Tax Gates have been settled with the private respondents, whose tenders were found to be in order in all respect. While doing so, settlement has been made at the highest bid value invoking Clause-7 of the tender conditions. 5. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 submits that there being no indication that Land Revenue Clearance Certificate is required to be submitted only in the name of the tenderer, the LRCC standing in the name of his brother along with the supporting affidavit, ought to have been accepted by the tender committee. Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1623/2015 placing reliance on the judgment reported in (2014) 4 GLT 71 [(National Construction (M/s) v. State of Nagaland and others] submits that non-submission of the Tax Clearance Certificate was not fatal to the tender submitted by the petitioner and ought to have been accepted. 6. Countering the above argument, both Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel representing the private respondents submit that there being no dispute that the tender submitted by the petitioners were defective, the decision of the Tender Committee cannot be called in question. Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC also submits that the argument advanced by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 is not acceptable, inasmuch as, apart from the fact that the particular Land Certificate was not in the name of the petitioner, the same is also not a Land Revenue Clearance Certificate. Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC also submits that the argument advanced by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 is not acceptable, inasmuch as, apart from the fact that the particular Land Certificate was not in the name of the petitioner, the same is also not a Land Revenue Clearance Certificate. He submits that even if the certificate submitted by the petitioner is accepted, the same being not LRCC, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said certificate. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgement dated 21/11/2013 passed in WA 387/2013, by which the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30/08/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2280/2013 was upheld. 7. As in the instant case in the said case also, the issue involved was acceptability or otherwise of the tender in view of non-furnishing of LRCC. When it was found that the tender submitted by the petitioner involved in the said proceeding did not accompany with the LRCC, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the rejection of the tender. Be it stated here that the LRCC that was submitted was in the name of the wife of the petitioner. Upholding the said judgment, the Division Bench in its judgment dated 21/11/2013 passed in WA 387/2013 held that non-submission of the LRCC in the name of the petitioner made the tender defective and consequently the decision of rejecting the tender was rightly taken. 8. In the instant writ petition, there is no dispute that both the petitioners did not submit the required documents referred to above. While in WP(C) No. 1685/2015, the petitioner did not submit the LRCC, in the other writ petition being WP(C) No. 1623/2015, the petitioner did not submit Tax Clearance Certificate. The decision on which Mr. S.M. Abdullah P. has placed reliance i.e. National Construction (IM/S) (supra) pertains to bestowing undue favour by changing the rule of the game after the tender process was initiated. Same is not the position in the instant case. It is not the case of the petitioners that there was any change in the role of the game after the tender process was initiated. 9. To quell any doubt, I have perused the purported Land Certificate submitted by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 and also the affidavit filed by his brother in support of the said certificate. It is not the case of the petitioners that there was any change in the role of the game after the tender process was initiated. 9. To quell any doubt, I have perused the purported Land Certificate submitted by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 and also the affidavit filed by his brother in support of the said certificate. On perusal of the records it appears that what was submitted by the petitioner was a copy of the Periodic Kheraj Patta with a supporting affidavit of his brother stating therein that the patta was handed over by him to the petitioner for the purpose of working in any Govt. sector and for any contractual work making use of the patta. Such an affidavit and the patta did not conform to the requirement of submission of LRCC i.e. Land Revenue Clearance Certificate. 10. An argument was advanced that even the private respondent involved in WP(C) No. 1685/2015 also did not submit LRCC. However, as the records have revealed, Land Revenue Clearance Certificate was submitted by the said respondent. Although it is the submission of Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Land Revenue Clearance Certificate did not specify the land in question, however, the said LRCC clearly indicates the payment of up-to-date revenue in respect of CFR Book No. 4789 and Sl. No. 98, which clearly identifies the land. 11. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.