LAWS(GAU)-2004-6-2

PRASANNA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On June 22, 2004
PRASANNA DUTTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and Mr. N. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge arising from common question of law based on similar facts and circumstances involved in batch of writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has allowed those writ petitions filed by the petitioners as respondents.

(2.) Facts necessary for deciding the question involved in these appeals in brief are that the tender for the whole sale supply of Potable Alcohol/Rectified Spirit (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "Rectified Spirit" to the Tinsukia Excise Ware House in the district of Tinsukia, for a period of three years from the date of settlement, was invited vide tender notice dated 25.06.2001. The annual consumption of country spirit in the area covered by the ware house was estimated as 15,60,000 LPL. The last date of receiving tender was 18.07.2001 upto 1 p.m. to be opened at 2 P.M.on the same day. In response to the said tender notice, 23 tenders were received within the schedule time. The tenderers offered different rates for supply of Rectified Spirit as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_146_GAULT3_2004Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The tender document incorporated various terms and conditions on the basis of which the tender would be settled with the privilege of supply of Rectified Spirit. Under Clause 2(a)(iv) every tender was to accompany an earnest money of rupees one lakh in favour of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department payable at Guwahati. Under Clause 2(v), a successful tenderer would be called upon to deposit a sum of rupees one lakh only as security deposit and if so desired, the successful tenderer could ask for adjustment of earnest money towards security deposit. Clause 4 and 28, which are relevant for deciding the question involved in the present case, are reproduced hereunder: