Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1220 (GAU)

NITU GOGOI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-09-04

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. G. Bakalial, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel and Ms. S. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the Sonari Municipal Board. 2. It is to be noted that as per the office order dated 11.08.2017, service of notice by Dasti method upon respondent No.5 had been accepted, but in spite of such service of notice, none appears for the respondent No.5. 3. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Sonari Municipal Board for settlement of amongst others, the daily bazaar cycle stand at Sonari for the year 2017-18. The last date of receipt of tender was fixed at 1.00 p.m. of 13.03.2017. The petitioner duly participated in the said tender process and he had quoted a rate of Rs. 1,26,400/-. The Government value of the cycle stand as per the NIT was fixed at Rs. 78,101/-. 4. In the said tender process, the respondent No.5 who had also participated, had quoted a rate of Rs.1,05,510/-. But, however, by the order dated 01.04.2017, the respondent Sonari Municipal Board had settled the cycle stand with the respondent No.5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner prefers this writ petition. 5. The records of the settlement were called for by this Court and as per the record, the Sonari Municipal Board had taken a decision to award the settlement of the daily bazaar cycle stand in favour of the respondent No.5 on the ground that the respondent No.5 is a woman. The said decision was taken as per resolution dated 30.03.2017. 6. Mr. G. Bakalial, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Central Coalfields Limited and another v. LL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 . In paragraph-36 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relies upon one of its earlier decision, wherein it is provided that every action of the Executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. In paragraph-36 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relies upon one of its earlier decision, wherein it is provided that every action of the Executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. A further reliance has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 , wherein in paragraph 15, it had been held that it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the rules of the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned. 7. Accordingly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities by making the resolution to settle the cycle stand in question in favour of the respondent No.5 on the ground that she is a woman is untenable. It is more so, in view of the fact that the NIT does not anyway indicate that any kind of preference or that an offer of settlement would be made only to such woman candidates. 8. On a perusal of the NIT, it is noticed that the NIT does not contain any such clause, which would indicates that the settlement would be made in favour of a woman by giving preference over any other tenderer irrespective of the rate that they may quote. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondent Sonari Municipal Board violates the principle that the rules of the game cannot be tinkered after the tender process had began. In such view of the matter, the settlement order dated 01.04.2017, made in favour of the respondent No. 5 is held to be unsustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.