SAUKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to settle the Natun Bazar in favour of the petitioner in view of the circumstances, when the settlement of market had already been allocated to the second lowest bidder, an amended writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to command the respondent Municipal Board, Tejpur I short called, 'Board' hereinafter to cancel/set aside the settlement granted in favour of the respondent No. 7 and also to prohibit the respondents from giving effect to the resolution dated 1.6.2004 passed by the 'Board' with further prayer to allocate the settlement of market in favour of the petitioner in terms of the original allotment order dated 31.3.2003.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the 'Board' had invited a tender for settlement of Natun Bazar market for which a tender was invited on Friday, 27.2.2004 upto 3 p.m. Indicating the name of market, minimum value & security amount in the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter abbreviated as NIT) dated in para No. 8 of the NIT a specific clause was provided that the authority is not bound to accept the highest tender/bidder or any of the tender. Authority has the power to reject any or all tender without disclosing any reason. It appears that several persons including the petitioner had offered their tenders where the petitioner had come out as the highest bidder quoting annual value of Rs. 9,30,786. However, on 31.3.2004 the Vice President of the Board issued a letter to the petitioner that he was appointed as agent because of Lok Sabha election to collect tax from 1.4.2004 to 15.5.2004 (for 45 days) for which an amount of Rs. 1,14,755 had to be deposited as an advance before the authority as per the direction of the Municipal Administration. It has been stated in the letter of appointment that the settlement of the market was purely temporary, subject to the approval of the Government of Assam. Subsequently, by a letter dated 2nd June, 2004, deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Urban Development Deptt. Addressed to the Chairman, of the 'Board', the settlement of market was to be made in favour of the petitioner after obtaining collateral security and observing necessary formalities as per existing rules. In sequence to this allocation, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,14,755 and proceeded to collect the revenue, however, it appears that after the Lok Sabha Election was over, the settlement in respect of the said market was granted in favour of the respondent No. 7, i.e., Md. Abdul Kalam Samsud Zaman. When the petitioner approached this court, this court by its order dated 10.6.2004 has restrained the respondents/'Board' from setting the market in favour of any one.

(3.) The reply in response has been filed by the respondents stating that the 'Board' in its meeting dated 1.6.2004 has already resolved to settle the market in question with the second highest bidder, i.e., in favour of respondent No. 7 and the 'Board' mainly for two reasons has rejected the tender of the petitioner:-