JADAV CHANDRA DIHINGIA Vs. LALBAHADUR DAS & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1876 of 1990 is the appellant herein. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel representing the State and the learned Counsel for the first respondent.

(2.) The dispute in the case relates to settlement of No. 7 Moran Country Spirit Shop for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1993. For the earlier period 1987-1990 the Deputy Commissioner settled the shop with the appellant, First respondent and other unsuccessful tenderers filed there separate appeals before the Assam Board of Revenue which by a common judgment set aside the settlement made in favour of the present appellant and directed resettlement of the shop. This was done on the basis that the financial position of the claimants was not satisfactory. The present appellant challenged the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue by filing Civil Rule No. 1330 of 1988. This Court directed status-quo to continue. The present appellant continued to conduct the shop till 31.3.1990. When this was brought to the notice of the Court the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. For the period 1990-93 appellant, first respondent and others submitted tenders. The Deputy Commissioner settled the shop in favour of the appellant. First respondent herein challenged the same by filing appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue which allowed the appeal and settled the shop with the first respondent on the ground that appellant was not financially sound. Ultimately appellant filed Civil Rule No. 1876 of 1990 and this Court stayed the operation of the judgment of the Board of Revenue. In other words, appellant continued to operate the shop till today. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and that is now challenged.

(3.) Rule 208 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 empowers the Collector to make settlement of Excise shops in consultation with the Advisory Board by adopting tender process and after the Advisory Board considers all the tenders, Shops shall not be settled with persons of bad moral character or persons who may be considered undesirable. The selected tenderer shall also be financially sound to run the shop. Rule 211 cautions the Presiding Officer of the Advisory Board to be on his guard against combination of tenders at the time of settlement. It also states that benami transactions shall not be permitted and tenders submitted by undesirable persons may not be considered. Thus, it may be seen that financial soundness of the tenderer is an important factor to be taken into consideration.