LALJI SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SLUGGISH justice is antithesis of decent and fair procedure enshrined in our Constitution. We invited learned counsel to help us dispense quick but deliberate justice and we record our appreciation that learned counsel for the parties co-operated with us and desired that the matter may be finally disposed of today.

(2.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution is projected against the order dated 30-7-1983 passed by the Government of Assam (Forest Department) dismissing the review application of the petitioner. It is necessary to give a thumb-nail details of the facts leading up to this application. Over six years ago tenders were invited for settlement of the Plywood coupes in question under the provisions of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, for short "the Rules". Six persons boxed their tenders and Ram Nath Singhy Respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 1,11,999/-, admittedly the highest offer. However, his tender was declared to be invalid and irregular by the Divisional Forest Officer, for short - "the D. F. O.", as Shri Singh submitted his bank draft for the earnest money allegedly after the opening of the tender papers. The tender of Shri Singh was rejected and cancelled on that count. The D. F. O. processed the tenders, prepared a comparative statement of the remaining five tenderers and recommended the second highest tenderer (the present petitioner) for settlement who had offered Rs. 14,000/- less than Respondent No. 5. However, the settling authority, the Government, settled the coupes with respondent No. 5. It has not been disputed that the Government was the settling authority under "the Rules'". Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order, the petitioner made an application for review under Rule 9 (c) of "the Rules" but the same was turned down. Therefore, the petitioner filed another review application in 1983 and obtained an order of stay in consequence whereof the operation of the coupes remains suspended. Strange are the ways, acts and actions of the Public Servants. A simple matter got bogged down unnecessarily. However, at long last the matter was heard and the reviewing authority held (1) that the bank draft depositing the earnest money was filed by respondent No. 5, (2) that the same was duly received and accepted by the D. F. O. and, (3) that the D. F. O. never rejected the hank draft or refused to accept the same. It also held that the bank draft was accepted by the D. F. O. yet did not treat the tender of respondent No. 5 as valid. The authority did not find any material to interfere with the order of the State Government settling the coupes with respondent No. 5 and rejected the second review application. This writ application stems from the said order.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government disposed of the review application without the records of the case. Indeed, the reviewing authority expressed clearly that the relevant records were not before it and it disposed the matter without them. We shall consider this question in due course.