Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1211 (GAU)

Anup Morang S/o Suresh Morang v. State of Assam

2025-07-30

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.M. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zila Parishad in annulling the settlement vide an order dated 17.07.2025 as well as granting the settlement vide an order dated 18.07.2025 in favour of the respondent No.7. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that on 11.07.2025, the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zila Parishad had informed the petitioner that the Behora Weekly Cattle Market have been settled in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had received the said communication on the same date. It is also very pertinent to mentioned that in the said notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zila Parishad, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was to deposit 100% of the settlement amount by 3 PM on 17.07.2025 as per Clause 22 of Part-III of the settlement tender conditions. The petitioner after receipt of the said, on 17.07.2025 submitted a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zila Parishad. The said communication is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and the contents being relevant is reproduced herein under: “To CEO Dated : 17/07/2025 Golaghat Zila Parisad Sub: Extension of time period for the Behora Cow Market Sir, I have the honour to inform you that I got the order copy on 11/07/2025 at around 8:30 PM on Friday and 12 th Sat & 13 th Sun was not a working day. And apart from this the Behora Cow Market is in a critical condition that’s why all the bidders was in a mutual understanding in these time period which was a waste. According to me, your time period i.e. 17/07/2025 do not cover 7 days. So Sir, I request you to grant us some more time looking at the amount. Yours sincerely, Anup Morang Received Sd//- illegible Singed and Sealed Golaghat Zila Parishad 17/7/2025” 4. From a perusal of the contents of the said communication, it appears that the petitioner’s grievance was that the Behora Cow Market is in a critical condition and as such sought for some more time for arranging the settlement amount. 5. Yours sincerely, Anup Morang Received Sd//- illegible Singed and Sealed Golaghat Zila Parishad 17/7/2025” 4. From a perusal of the contents of the said communication, it appears that the petitioner’s grievance was that the Behora Cow Market is in a critical condition and as such sought for some more time for arranging the settlement amount. 5. It further appears that in view of the said communication and non- deposit of the amount, the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zila Parishad annulled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and further initiated a process of lottery taking into account that all the eligible bidders have quoted the same rate. It is further seen that on 18.07.2025, there was a lottery held and on the basis of the said lottery, the respondent No.7 was selected and the settlement was awarded in favour of the respondent No.7 directing the respondent No.7 to deposit the 100% of the settlement amount on or before 24.07.2025. 6. The learned Standing counsel for the P&RD Department submitted during the course of the hearing that the respondent No.7 in the meantime had deposited the 100% of the settlement amount. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of 7 days as per Clause 22 of Part-III of the tender condition provides granting of one week time for deposit of the said amount which as per him would have been on 18.07.2025 and not on 17.07.2025. He therefore submitted that the order dated 17.07.2025 on the basis of which the settlement was annulled was required to be interfered with. 8. This Court has duly taken note of Clause 22 of the tender conditions. The said Clause 22 is reproduced herein under: “ 22 . The tenderer who received the settlement shall submit 100% of the settlement to the Gaon Panchayat/Anchalik Panchayat/Zila Parishad within one week of sending the settlement notice.” 9. From a perusal of the above quoted Clause, it is seen that the tenderer who receives the settlement has to deposit 100% of the settlement amount to the Gaon panchayat/Anchalik Panchayat/Zila Parishad within one week of sending the settlement notice. In the instant case, it would be seen that the settlement notice was issued on 11.07.2025 which the petitioner duly received. In the said settlement notice, the petitioner was duly informed to deposit the said settlement amount by 17.07.2025 by 3 PM. In the instant case, it would be seen that the settlement notice was issued on 11.07.2025 which the petitioner duly received. In the said settlement notice, the petitioner was duly informed to deposit the said settlement amount by 17.07.2025 by 3 PM. The petitioner did not agitate the said matter immediately rather on 17.07.2025, the petitioner wrote a letter, as already quoted above, seeking some more time. In the opinion of this Court, the action on the part of the respondent authorities to annul the settlement in favour of the petitioner on 17.07.2025 do not seem to be unreasonable or unfair or in violation of the tender conditions. 10. This Court further duly takes note of that the petitioner vide the communication dated 17.07.2025 did not also give an undertaking to submit the amount on 18.07.2025 but rather sought for some more time. This aspect also clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in depositing and as such the question of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.