NILUTPAL KUMAR BORO Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 were personally served as per the order of this Court and thereafter necessary affidavits have been filed by the petitioner, which are on record. Therefore, service on respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are treated to be complete. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to be the counsels for all the sides, the matter is takes up for disposal at this stage itself.

(2.) The Mayang Anchalik Panchayat, which is under the Morigaon Zila Parishad, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 30.4.2011 inviting tenders from eligible persons for settlement of various markets, parghats etc. within its jurisdiction for the year 2011-2012 i.e. for the period from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012. The Na-khula weekly market was also included in the list of markets/parghats etc. for which the NIT was issued. In terms of the said NIT, 16 tenderers submitted tenders for settlement of the Na-khula weekly market (briefly "the market" hereafter), including the petitioner and the respondent No. 7. The bid value of the petitioner was Rs. 1,31,999/- per month whereas that of the respondent No. 7 was Rs. 53,365/- per month. By order dated 28.7.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zila Parishad, the market has been settled with the respondent No. 7 at the rate offered by him. This order dated 28.7.2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) The State has not filed any affidavit but has produced the relevant record at the time of hearing. The respondent No. 7 has filed his affidavit-in-opposition. In his affidavit, the respondent No. 7 has stated that the tender of the petitioner was found to be defective as he had given wrong valuation of the property, which he had offered as surety. According to the respondent No. 7, as per Clause 8 of the NIT, the concerned tenderer is required to furnish immovable property as surety and the value of the property should be 25% of the tendered amount, which in the case of the petitioner was less. The petitioner had given a higher figures as compared to the value assessed by the Sub-Registrar and, therefore, his bid was treated to be defective. The bid of the respondent No. 7 was found to be the highest amongst the valid Tenderers and, therefore, the authority rightly settled the market in favour of the respondent No. 7.