Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 122 (MEG)

Mamal Arengh v. Executive Committee Ghadc

2019-04-25

H.S.THANGKHIEW, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Sealed Tenders regarding Haats/Ferry Ghats for the year 2018-2019 and Fishery for the year 2018-2021 were invited on 12.10.2017. Petitioner and respondent No.4 claim to have offered their respective bids for Ampati Sorkari Dak for the year 2018-2019. As against Rs.23,06,400/-, petitioner had offered Rs.39,01,001/- whereas respondent No.4 Rs.39,05,000/-. Bid of respondent No.4 was accepted. Thereafter, respondent No.4 according to the official respondents had moved an application with a request to the then Executive Member, In-charge Market of Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) to reduce the amount of settlement. The request was considered by the then Executive Committee, GHADC as a result whereof, amount was reduced to Rs.24,56,731/-. Consequently on 19.03.2018, Ampati Haat was allotted to respondent No.4 for the period i.e. from April 2018 to 31st March 2019 on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. 2. Petitioner filed instant petition projecting therein that the amount was reduced at the request of respondent No.4 but no notice was given to him, therefore, respondent No.4 has been favoured by the official respondents. Finally has prayed for quashing the said allotment order No.230 dated 19.03.2018. 3. By efflux of time, the order is not now in force as it has expired on 31.03.2019. 4. There is another development i.e. the official respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have made it clear that the respondent No.4 after leave of the Court will be directed to deposit the entire amount which he had offered for the said market i.e. Rs.39,05,000/- failing which said settlement order dated 19.03.2018 will be cancelled forthwith. 5. Factually it is an admitted position that the actual estimated amount as per the advertisement notice was Rs.23,06,400/-, petitioner had offered Rs.39,01,001/- whereas respondent No.4 had offered Rs.39,05,000/-, bid of the respondent was higher as such was considered but finally was reduced to Rs.24,56,731/-. In case same concession would have been extended to the petitioner, may be it would have been settled in his favour. 6. Taking note of the said position, present Chief Executive Member, GHADC in the affidavit-in-opposition has pleaded that notice would be issued to the respondent No.4 to pay the offered amount of Rs.39,05,000/-. 7. As on date the position has undergone change i.e., the order impugned has outlived by quashing the same nothing will happen either to the petitioner or to the respondents. 7. As on date the position has undergone change i.e., the order impugned has outlived by quashing the same nothing will happen either to the petitioner or to the respondents. Petitioner may have other remedies i.e. to claim damage by having recourse to appropriate legal measures. Equally true, official respondents may have also an option to have recourse to appropriate remedies in the light of their pleadings as referred to above. Both the parties are at liberty to take recourse to the available remedies, as shall be permissible under the rules. 8. Petition by efflux of time is rendered in-fructuous is accordingly dismissed.