RUNIMA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3400/99 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant in the following circumstances.

(2.) The country spirit Shop No. 1 at Hatilung, North Lakhimpur Sahar in the district of Lakhimpur was settled with the petitioner vide order dated 28.12.98 of the respondent No. 4 for a period of three years with effect from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002. Two of the discontented tenderers assailed the aforesaid settlement before the Assam Board of Revenue which were numbered and registered as Case No. 17E(L)/99 and 23E(L)/99.In the appeals the appellants questioned the financial soundness of the respondent as well as her claim for settlement as an educated unemployed youth within the meaning of Rule 23 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. The Assam Board of Revenue considered the affidavits, passbooks and the materials on record and found that the source of finance of the respondent No. 3 (appellant in Case No. 17E(L)/99) Shri Raj Shekhar Gogoi was more genuine and more sound than that of the appellant (respondent No. 1 before the Board of Revenue) and that of the other appellant Shri Ranjit Doley. The Board while reaching the above conclusion took note of the tender more particularly the column 11 of the tender and held that the appellant did not indicate in the said claim about the source of finance and quantity of cash in hand, Bank balance etc, of her financier. According to the Board, the requirement of furnishing the particulars in column 11 were of mandatory nature. The Board finally held that finance of the respondent No. 3 was more genuine and more scound than that of the appellant and than that of the other appellant Shri Ranjit Doley. The Board also held that the appellant was not entitled for the preference under Rule 223(2) of the Excise Rules so much so that she should not be treated an educated unemployed youth within the meaning of the Scheme. The Board accordingly allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 3 and set aside the settlement made in favour of the appellant and odered for settlement of the CS shop with the respondent No. 3. The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Assam Board of Revenue by way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court on considering the respective claim of the parties dismissed the writ petition and upheld the judgment of the Board. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr DC Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the respondent No, 2 Assam Board of Revenue. Mr Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Single fell into serious error in not interfering in the decision making process of the Assam Board of Revenue. Mr Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learend Assam Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction and illegally set at nautht the lawful decision of the local authority in settling the excise shop in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. The Board, according to the learned counsel, took into the irrelevant consideration overlooking the relevant consideration] which effect its ultimate decision and the learned Single Judge, on the face of the error apparent on the face of the record, dismissed the writ petition which caused great miscarriage of justice.