NITU SONOWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance raised in this writ petition is in respect of the decision of the respondents to put the Stone Quarry in question for sale again abandoning the earlier process of settlement.

(2.) THE petitioner in response to the notice inviting tenders dated 12. 12. 03 in respect of Dilli Stone Quarry No. II (A) putting the same to re-sale for 2004-06, submitted his tender offering bid value of Rs. 5,05,000/ -. Alongwith the petitioner, two other tenderers also submitted their tenders offering bid value of Rs. 4,92,001/- and Rs. 3,91,005/ -. The Divisional Forest Officer, Sivasagar Division (respondent No. 5) upon scrutiny of the tender papers, recommended the case of the petitioner, he being the highest bidder. After anxiously awaiting for the settlement order to be issued and there being delay, the petitioner enquired the matter in the Office and came to know that the respondent No. 3 by his impugned communication dated 12. 04. 04 issued direction to put the Stone Quarry again for re-sale. The impugned letter dated 12. 04. 04 is quoted below: "government OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (T), ASSAM no. FGT. 24/37/dilli-II (A)/57, Dated Guwahati, the 12. 04. 04. The Conservator of Forests eastern Assam Circle jorhat. Sub : Settlement of Dilli Stone Quarry No. II (A)Ref : your letter No. FG. 24/s/dilli-II/04-06/siv/eac Dt. 03. 02. 04. In inviting a reference to the above, I am to inform you that as per the records it appears that the daily newspaper Dainik Janambhoomi carried the sale advertise and on 30. 12. 03 and the tenders were received on 05. 01. 04. Thus, there were only 4 (four) days between these two date, i. e. between 30. 01. 03 and 05. 01. 04. Out of these 4 days one (01. 01. 04) happened to be a restricted holiday and another (03. 01. 04) happened to be Saturday. The prospective tenderers were, therefore, not given the opportunity to compete. It appears that the bids offered are less for this reason. You are requested to issue necessary instruction so that the mahal is again put to sale after wide circulation of the sale notice as per rules. Sd/ chief Conservator of Forest (T), assam, Guwahati-1. "

(3.) THE ground for the decision to put the Stone Quarry to re-sale is the inadequate notice and bid amounts. According to the petitioner such a plea is wholly untenable both on factual and legal aspect of the matter. Referring to the other similarly situated Stone Quarry within the same Sivasagar Division, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not put the same to re-sale on ground of inadequate notice. According to the petitioner, publication of tender notice in respect of re-sale is not a condition precedent as per the provisions of Rule 4 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977. As per the requirement of the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules, publication of short sale notice at least 15 days before the last date of receipt of tenders with or without publication of the sale notice in news paper conforms to the requirements and in the instant case, the re-sale notice having been issued on 12. 12. 2003 fixing the last date as 05. 01. 04 met the said requirement of proviso to Rule 4 of the said Rules which reads as follows :