Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 779 (GAU)

Antaz Ali Sk v. Bodoland Territorial Council

2018-05-10

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. Petitioner assails the Order dated 01.07.2017 issued under the hand of the Block Development Officer, Mahamaya Development Block, Bagribari, whereby settlement of Salbari Hat-Gohat was made with the respondent no. 5 at the bid value of Rs. 5,55,000/- for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018. The primary ground of challenge is that the petitioner having offered a higher bid than the respondent no. 5 i.e. standing at Rs. 6,77,777/- and also being a valid bidder, as such no settlement could have been made with the respondent no. 5. In addition, petitioner also relies on the letter dated 23.05.2017 of the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar whereby the BDO, Mahamaya was instructed to issue Notice Inviting Tender without insisting on deposit of earnest money/security money. 3. The Notice Inviting Tender for settlement of Salbari Hat-Gohat was issued on 25.05.2017. For the purpose of determining the case at hand, the following condition as stipulated in the Notice is of relevance: "The tender must have to deposit the offered rate fixed of the concerned Market/Go-hat/Parking/Parghat/Ferry/cattle pond, etc. in the form of Bank Draft which shall be made payable in favour of the B.D.O Mahamaya Dev. Block at SBI Branch alongwith tender documents to be a valid tenderer." 4. In the Comparative Statement so prepared it was mentioned that the petitioner did not furnish the Bank Draft, as required in the condition mentioned above. Mention is also made that the petitioner did not furnish the bid value. 5. On perusal of the materials on record it is seen that the endorsement made in the Comparative Statement that the petitioner did not furnish the bid value does not appear to be correct. However, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner failed to furnish the Bank Draft covering his offered bid for settlement of the market. On the other hand, it is seen that the respondent no. 5, although offering a lower bid, submitted the required Bank Draft. Thus, it cannot be held that the petitioner, despite having offered higher bid, was the valid highest bidder. 6. At this stage, Mr. On the other hand, it is seen that the respondent no. 5, although offering a lower bid, submitted the required Bank Draft. Thus, it cannot be held that the petitioner, despite having offered higher bid, was the valid highest bidder. 6. At this stage, Mr. Dey submits that as per the aforesaid letter of the Secretary dated 23.05.2017, tender amount was required to be deposited before getting the settlement order. The said letter did not stipulate that the offered rate or the tender amount is to be deposited along with the tender documents. This argument of Mr. Dey does not stand to reason, in as much as, the condition stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender that the offered rate should be deposited in the form of Bank Draft alongwith the tender documents was never put to question by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner participated in the tender process being full well aware of the conditions of the Tender. As such, he cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the process, more so when he failed to emerge successful in the tender process. Having regard to the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.