Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 93 (MEG)

Brushlin M. Sangma v. Ghadc

2019-03-28

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1&2. Service was sought to be affected by the respondent No. 3, but as per the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, it seems that the respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the same. As there is some urgency in the matter and the main respondents are the respondent No. 1 & 2/GHADC whereas, the respondent No. 3 is only a beneficiary of the largesse of the respondent No. 1 & 2, this matter is taken up today for hearing on the interim prayer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the successful tenderer for Rongram market by making a bid of Rs.20,10,200/- (Rupees twenty lakhs ten thousand and two hundred) only and the name of the writ petitioner as successful tenderer was also declared by the respondent No. 1 & 2 for the said market. However, the petitioner submits that strangely the respondent No. 1 & 2 on the basis of a meeting held on 12.02.2019 had decided to award the tender to the next highest bidder (respondent No. 3) for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent No. 1 & 2 is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and though, the scope of judicial review is limited in tender matters, the instant case is a fit case for interference, inasmuch as the principles of natural justice have been violated and the impugned action of the respondent is highly arbitrary. 4. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 has filed a short objection and at the outset prays that he may be allowed some time to file a detailed counter affidavit. He further submits that there is no illegality in the action of the respondent No. 1 & 2 inasmuch as Clause 9 (Annexure-I of the writ petition) provides that: "9. All sales in tender are subject to the confirmation of the Chief Executive Member, G.H.A.D.C and does not bind itself to accept the highest offered or may refuse the highest offer for the reasons to be recorded in writing." 5. All sales in tender are subject to the confirmation of the Chief Executive Member, G.H.A.D.C and does not bind itself to accept the highest offered or may refuse the highest offer for the reasons to be recorded in writing." 5. He also submits that the tender is framed as per the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Market Tax) Regulation, 1970, and as such no interference is called for by this Court at this stage. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel and have examined the materials on record. After due consideration and after examination of the materials on record and the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 & 2, I am of the prima facie view that an interim order is called for at this stage. 7. As such, until the next date, the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 as far as it relates to Rongram-Shri. Bathrinson Marak indicated at Serial No. 5 of the impugned order shall not be given effect to. 8. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the matter, in view of the fact that this Court has suspended the operation of the order for settlement of the 9. Rongram market, they may be allowed to collect and manage the said Rongram market till the next date. 10. The period for the lease is to commence from 1st April, 2019 as such until further orders in the matter and until the next date, the respondent No. 1 & 2 shall make departmental arrangement to manage the market from 1st April, 2019 onwards. 11. List the matter after 3(three) weeks.