DHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri AK Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, who has also produced the original records. Though respondent no. 4 has been served, as held by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020, he has chosen not to contest the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, is that pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 31.05.2019 for settlement of various "Bazar/Ghat/Fisheries for the year 2019-2020", the petitioner had submitted his bid for the Uluwani Weekly Market under the Kuweritol Gaon Panchayat in the District of Nagaon (for short hereafter referred to as Market). The bids offered were opened and a Comparative Statement was prepared. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the bid offered by the petitioner was the highest (H1), he could learn that the respondent authorities were proposing to allot the Market to the respondent no.4. Subsequently, the petitioner was able to collect a copy of the provisional list dated 31.7.2019 from which it was clear that the settlement of the Market in question was awarded to the respondent no.4. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted.

(3.) Shri Baruah, learned counsel has submitted that no reasons have been assigned as to why the bid of the petitioner which was regarded as H1 was ignored and revenue being of paramount importance in matter of settlement, such decision is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Comparative Statement annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition, it is submitted that the same did not indicate that the bid of the petitioner suffered from any technical flaws and his offer was Rs. 1,66,501/- and that of the respondent No.4 was Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, there was a difference of Rs.16,501/- which is substantial from the perspective of the bid value. He submits that if there were any defect in the bid of the petitioner, the same would have been detected at the time of preparation of the Comparative Statement and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that there were no defects in the bid.