M D ABDUL BARIK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Writ Appeals raised identical questions of law und it is in these circumstances that these two writ appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The dispute in W.A.No. 511/96 relates to the settlement of Moirabari bi-weekly bazar for which tenders have been invited for the financial year 1996-97. As far as Writ Appeal No. 512/96 is concerned that relates to the Moirahari Daily Bazar and in this case also tenders had been invited for settlement of the bazar fur the financial year 1996-97. Before The settlement of the aforesaid two hi-weekly bazar and daily bazar could be made in favour of the persons who had been offered lenders, the State Government by an order dated 11.6.96 extended Ihe period of settlement of the bi-weekly and Daily Bazar in favour of the sitting lessees in whose favour the aforesaid two bazars had been settled during the preceding financial year, 1995-96. The petitioner-appellant in W.A.No.511/96 has averred that he has submitted the highest tender for an amount of Rs. 76,101/ per month while the lowest tender was of the respondent No. 5 for an amount of Rs. 26,000/-, Admittedly under the order of the Government under which extension has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 5. the sitting lessees of the preceding year 1995-96 is for an amount of Rs. 25,300/- per month i.e.10% more than the last years amount for which the bazar was settled in favour of the respondent No.5. As far as the petitioner appellant of Writ Appeal No.512/96 is concerned he was the second highest bidder who had offered in his tender an amount of RS. 9005/- per month and the respodent No. 5 had not participated in the tender. As has been stated earlier by an order passed by the State Government, extension was granted in favour of the respondent No.5 the silling lessee on the monthly rate of Rs. 3410/- (i.e.10% more than the amount at which the bazar had been settled in his favour during (he year 1995-96).

(3.) Mr. Lahiri, learned cousel appearing for the appellants in these two appeals has urged before us that under the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 the State Governement is not invested with any power by which they could extend the period for which the earlier settlement had been made by the Andialik Panchayat as would be clear from the specific provisions of Section 105 of the aforesaid Ad. Reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court in Tunuram Tayeng Vs. State of Assam & Ors, 1992(1) GLJ 240 and in Gopal Harijon Vs. State of Assam 1996 (1) GLJ 442 and 1996(2) GLT 95.