DULU MIAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. M Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Roy, learned counsel for the authorities under the Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Assam including the Darrang Zilla Parishad and Pub-Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat and Mr. B Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

(2.) A notice inviting tender was issued by the Pub- Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat, amongst others, inviting tendered bids for settlement of the Tangni Animal Weekly Market under Dhula Gaon Panchayat where the minimum bid amount was stated to be Rs. 5,69,403/- requiring the earnest money of Rs. 56,941. Before going into the rival claims, we take particular notice of some of the terms and conditions of the NIT which would be relevant for the purpose of this writ petition and which are extracted as below:

(3.) As the bid value was over rupees one lakh the matter as required under the Rules was sent before the Darrang Zilla Parishad for its decision. By the allotment order dated 03.10.2019 of the Darrang Zilla Parishad, the respondent No.8 Zahuruddin was settled with the Tangi Open Weekly Market for an amount of Rs.11,52,201. The said settlement with the respondent No.8 is assailed in this writ petition wherein in paragraph 11 a specific stand has been taken that in the comparative statement against the column pertaining to non-defaulter certificate, in respect of respondent No.8, it was provided that no non-defaulter certificate was produced. A further stand has been taken that the brother of the guarantor of respondent No.8, namely, Meser Ali was a defaulter of the Darrang Zilla Parishad and against him a bakijai case being No.DNB 13/2014/CEO/ZP/435 dated 05.08.2014 dated 05.08.2014 is pending. In paragraph 11, a further stand has been taken that the guarantor of the respondent No.8 Safiur Rahman, is one of the bidders in respect of Dhula Daily Market under the same advertisement and therefore it violates the provisions of Clause 13 that a person who is a bidder himself or a surety for a bidder cannot submit bid for another market/ghat etc. and also cannot stand surety for another. The said two grounds urged upon by the petitioner in the writ petition has been dealt upon by the respondents in the Darrang Zilla Parishad in their affidavit-in-opposition by taking the stand that the tender of the petitioner itself was defective in several respects, and therefore, although as per the bid value the petitioner's bid was the highest bid, but as because of the defects pointed out by the Zilla Parishad the settlement was refused to the petitioner. We are constrained to take note of that the Zilla Parishad has not made any statement as regards the defects in the tender of respondent No.8.