RIDALIN LAW Vs. JAINTIA HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is a second round of litigation before this Court wherein, in the first round, the petitioner though being the highest bidder to operate a check station at Mookyndur, the same was rejected by the respondent District Council, and instead was settled with one Rudolf G. Kyndiah. This Court on the challenge to the rejection, had allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order of settlement, and had further directed the respondents to re-examine the requirements and norms for setting up a revenue station before taking any further decision on the work order. The respondents thereafter on a re-examination of the matter, vide order dtd. 26/10/2022, allotted the check station to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner make arrangements for suitable land to set up the check gate, which the petitioner contends was duly complied with. However, the respondents purportedly due to a legal notice issued by the earlier unsuccessful second highest bidder namely; Rudolf G. Kyndiah, cancelled the order dtd. 26/10/2022. Further, the respondents then took a decision to run the check gate departmentally by leasing a plot of land at Khliehtyrshi, which was at some distance from Mookyndur the original location of the check gate. The writ petitioner being aggrieved thereby, is before this Court seeking appropriate directions.

(2.) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the actions of the respondents was with a view to circumvent the order of this Court, and even their own order dtd. 26/10/2022, whereby the settlement had been made in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the reason for cancellation of the petitioner's allotment, based on the legal notice issued by Rudolf G. Kyndiah, is without any basis, inasmuch as, as his settlement had been cancelled by this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, he no longer had any locus, to question the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel has contended that the respondents to cover up this illegality, have now sought to bring out additional reasons for cancellation of the order of settlement of the petitioner in the affidavit-in-opposition, when such grounds were never present in the impugned order dtd. 16/3/2023. This he submits is impermissible and has been done as an afterthought.

(3.) On another limb of submission, it has been submitted that as per the condition set by the respondents, the petitioner had obtained on lease, the same plot of land, which had been found suitable when the lease was settled with the said Rudolf G. Kyndiah, and as such the cancellation has therefore been made with an oblique motive to deprive the petitioner of the contract.