MAJIDUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. D. Das Barman, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.6. None appears for the respondent No.4.

(2.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the settlement order dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure-E of the writ petition) issued by the Secretary/Executive Officer, Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat settling Puthimari Hat in favour of the respondent No.6 and to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to settle the same in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The facts pleaded in the writ petition, in a nutshell, are that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 16.05.2016 by the President of Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat for settlement of Puthimari Hat for the year 2016-2017. The petitioner had submitted his tender offering Rs.3,82,321/- enclosing all the documents required to be submitted under the NIT and the tender of the petitioner is the highest valid tender. Name of his guarantor was reflected as Basirul Rahman in some of the documents instead of his actual name Basirul Hoque and accordingly, an affidavit was sworn on 15.06.2016 and same was also submitted. Land valuation certificate was submitted in respect of 11 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Lechas of land of his guarantor Basirul Hoque and such certificate demonstrates that the value of the land is Rs. 59,53,500/-. It is pleaded that the comparative statement of the Hat was prepared in an arbitrary manner and the signatures of the members of the General Standing Committee were obtained hurriedly. However, the impugned order of settlement dated 20.07.2016 was issued in favour of the respondent No.6, who had submitted tender for Rs.97,990/- and the tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is discrepancy in the documents of the guarantor.