MOSARAF HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. A Roy, learned standing counsel for P&RD Department representing respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

(2.) Notice inviting tender (NIT) No. PMAP 11/ Market/2018-19/12-182 dated 29.05.2019 was issued by the authority of the Pub-Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat, Dhula under Darrang Zilla Parishad in the district of Darrang. The respondent No. 5, Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zilla Parishad settled the Tangni Animal Market in favour of the respondent No. 8, whose bid was lower than the one of the petitioner being the highest bidder. The said settlement was issued on 03.10.2019 bearing No. DZP/ Market/Gen./784/2019-20/281.

(3.) Mr. Nair submits that the petitioner quoted the bid of Rs. 41,00,909/- and on the other hand respondent No. 8 quoted Rs. 15,15,501/-. It is an admitted fact that as required under clause 13 of the condition of the NIT the land value of the land pledged as security was below the quoted bid of the petitioner. Referring to the comparative statement the concerned Anchalik Panchayat recommended the bid of the petitioner considering the same to be the highest. The Zilla Parishad while settling the market, without assigning any reasons thereof preferred respondent No. 8 who was the 5th highest bidder in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The petitioner being the highest bidder and as the value of the land submitted as security was lesser than the bid value which is a deficiency, the petitioner ought to have provided with the settlement by allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to refurnish such security covering the bid value or by providing additional land/ bank guarantee to cover up the land value. The bid of the petitioner is more than double the one on the basis of which the settlement was done with the respondent No. 8. This has caused a substantial loss in the revenue earnings to the respondent State. On perusal of the comparative statement the respondent No. 8 also failed to submit the no objection from the admitted co-pattadars of the land submitted as security.