Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 595 (GAU)

Abdul Goni Khandakar v. State of Assam

2020-06-25

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2020
ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. 1. Heard Shri R Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam. 2. Petitioner has put to challenge the resolution of the meeting dated 04.08.2019, passed by the Hatidhura Anchalik Panchayat resolving to settle the Hatidhura Weekly Market in favour of the respondent No. 5. It is contended that the very foundation of the tender process was not in consonance with law and apparently, vitiated by mala fide and nepotism. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the NTT dated 26.07.2019 for settlement of the aforesaid Market' whereby the date and time stipulated for receipt of tenders was 29.07.2019 at 1 p.m. It is submitted that the intervening days were Fourth Saturday and Sunday and, therefore, the notice was tailor made to accommodate the respondent No. 5. He further submits that the bid of the respondent No. 5 was defective which has been overlooked by the authorities. As regards service upon the respondent No. 5, though service was made even by dasti, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 06.03.2020 whereby service upon the respondent No. 5 has been held to be complete with the further observation that the matter will proceed ex-parte against the respondent No. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel has placed before this Court an office order dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department whereby, on principle, a decision has been taken to extend the present settlement with the existing lessee in view of the present situation of COVID-19. It is contended that when the initial settlement is illegal, the respondent No. 5 should not be given the benefit of the 'on principle decision' circulated vide the office order dated 29.05.2020. 3. Shri A Roy, learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the bid of the petitioner itself was defective and, therefore, he did not have locus to challenge the settlement with the respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that the tenure of settlement is coming to an end on 30.06.2020 and, therefore, there is no live cause of action to be adjudicated in this writ petition. It is further submitted that the tenure of settlement is coming to an end on 30.06.2020 and, therefore, there is no live cause of action to be adjudicated in this writ petition. As regards, the office order dated 29.05.2020, the learned Standing Counsel submits that he is not aware of the same and no instruction, as such, has been received by him that existing arrangement with the respondent No. 5 would be continued. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, it appears that the entire process by which the settlement was granted is vitiated by illegality, which is writ large on the face of the NIT. A Settlement process for distribution of State largesse cannot be done in the manner, as has been done in the instant case wherein no time was given to submit bids and thereby competition was drastically reduced. Therefore, without going into the merits of the further submissions, the process itself does not appear to be in consonance with law. However, noticing the fact that the tenure is coming to an end on 30.06.2020, this Court while declaring the impugned order is illegal would not like to pass any orders for discontinuation of the present arrangement till the expiry of the term which is coming to an end within another six days. However, it is made clear that since the allotment vide the impugned resolution has been held to be illegal, the present notification dated 29.05.2020, which is general in nature, may not be applied to the Hatidhura Weekly Market. However, it is left to the Department to run the market on its own or by any other arrangement, which is recognised by law. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 6. The office order dated 29.05.2020 is made a part of the record.