Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1399 (KAR)

Gregari Timuthi Monthero S/o. Jokim Monthero v. Chief Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Mangalore Taluk

2017-10-13

VINEET KOTHARI

body2017
ORDER : 1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions seeking to assail the extension of contract in favour of Respondent No.4 – Mr. Mohammad Nisar for collection of Tax, Rate, Fees and other amounts on behalf of the Respondent Bajpe Village Panchayat, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. 2. The petitioners by these petitions have contended before this Court that the said Respondent Gram Panchayat should hold public auction for according the contract for such collection of Revenue on behalf of the Respondent Gram Panchayat and therefore the Respondent Gram panchayat had invited the Tenders for the said purpose. But before the said Tender process could be undertaken, the Respondent Gram Panchayat again passed the Resolution No.13/2017-18, Annexure F and with the increase of 2% on the previous contractual amount and subject to the condition that the arrears to the extent of Rs.1,68,745/is paid by the Respondent No.4 Mr. Mohammad Nisar on 13/04/2017 itself, his period of contract was extended which is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that Section 203 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘Act’ for short) which empowers the Gram Panchayat to lease out the said right to collect tax, rate and fees or other amounts payable to Gram Panchayat to a third party, the same shall be done only by way of public auction or by tender, subject to the Rules prescribed and the amount due under such contract shall be recoverable in the manner provided under this Act. He therefore urged that once the Respondent Gram Panchayat had decided to call for fresh Tenders on account of default made by the Respondent No.4, there was no justification for reversal of that decision and passing the impugned Resolution No.13/2017-18 vide Annexure F awarding the said contract to the Respondent No.4 himself for the next period of 2017-18. He therefore urged that once the Respondent Gram Panchayat had decided to call for fresh Tenders on account of default made by the Respondent No.4, there was no justification for reversal of that decision and passing the impugned Resolution No.13/2017-18 vide Annexure F awarding the said contract to the Respondent No.4 himself for the next period of 2017-18. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Mangalore as Appellate Authority on 27/09/2017 that the collection of revenue made by the Gram Panchayat itself between the period from 18/06/2017 to 25/09/2017, the said Gram Panchayat collected the revenue of Rs.5 lakhs approximately and therefore if the Panchayat itself continues to collect the said revenue, it will be in the larger public interest and will fetch more revenue to the Gram panchayat instead of continuing the contract with the Respondent No.4, Mr. Mohammad Nisar. 4. The legal position is that the interference of the Courts particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters has to be minimal and only in exceptional circumstances, as the complex and mixed questions of fact and law are involved in such matters. 5. The Court even put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless the petitioners are willing to offer double the amount of the contractual sum of the Respondent No.4 or a substantially higher amount, such Resolution of the Gram Panchayat to continue the contract with the Respondent No.4 may not be interfered with by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to give any such offer on behalf of the petitioners and on the contrary, only urged the legal submission that under Section 203 of the Act fresh Tenders were required to be called and such contract could be awarded only through the open bidding process as envisaged under Section 203 of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the Resolution No.13/2017-18 of the Gram Panchayat, Annexure F, cannot be said to be per se illegal or arbitrary. If the tender process initiated by the Respondent Gram Panchayat was not finalized and taken to its logical end, and in the meanwhile itself, the Respondent Gram Panchayat decided to continue with the Respondent No.4, Mr. If the tender process initiated by the Respondent Gram Panchayat was not finalized and taken to its logical end, and in the meanwhile itself, the Respondent Gram Panchayat decided to continue with the Respondent No.4, Mr. Mohammad Nisar, subject to increase in the contractual amount, the same cannot be held to be per se illegal and arbitrary. 7. Section 203 of the Act does not envisage any such annual exercise of inviting tenders. It is not the case of the petitioners that the contract in favour of Respondent No.4 was not so awarded in his favour in an open bidding process no Rules are framed in this regard as stipulated in Section 203 of the Act itself and no such Rules have been brought to the notice of the Court. 8. Section 203 of the Act is quoted below for ready reference. “203. Agency for collection– The tax, rate, fee or other amount payable to the Gram Panchayat may be collected by such agency as the Panchayat may appoint in this behalf, provided that it shall be lawful for a Gram Panchayat to lease the right to levy and collect any tax, rates, fees or other amount that may be imposed under this Act, by public auction or by tender, subject to the rules prescribed and the amount due under such lease shall be recoverable in the manner provided in this chapter.” 9. If the Gram Panchayat was satisfied that the Respondent No.4 can discharge the said function even for the next year with a marginal increase of 2% for the next year also and has paid off the arrears as required in the impugned Resolution No.13/2017-18, such a decision taken in the democratic process of a Panchayath Raj Institution cannot be successfully assailed by the intending bidders like the petitioners before this Court as there is no statutory provision giving a contrary mandate of law for holding such actual Tender process afresh every year. The said Resolution therefore, does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. 10. The petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.