SUJIT SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 as well as Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondent No.7. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appears for respondent No.8.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the Forest Department had issued a notice dated 09.05.2016 inviting bids for settlement of the Dumnighat Mining Area, NKD-B-3, North Kamrup Division, Rangia for a period of seven years. As per the NIT dated 09.05.2016 the reserve price of the said mining area was fixed at Rs.54 lakhs (approx.). In response to the notice dated 09.05.2016, as many as 8 (eight) tenderers including the writ petitioner herein and the respondent No.7 had participated. On opening the bids it was found that the highest bidder, who had quoted a price of Rs. 1,11,55,999/-, was a fictitious entity inasmuch, a subsequent enquiry revealed that no such bid was submitted by the person concerned. The writ petitioner herein had offered Rs. 71,00,000/- but did not submit TIN particulars/certificate as per the requirement of Clause 12(c) of the NIT dated 09.05.2016 as a result of which the bid submitted by the writ petitioner, though second highest in terms of the price offered, was rejected as technically invalid. The respondent No.7 was the third highest bidder who had quoted Rs. 62,00,000/- and his tender was found to be technically valid. Notwithstanding the same, taking note of the revenue that is likely to be generated from the settlement of the market through a fresh process of settlement, the concerned Additional Chief Conservator of Forest had issued a communication dated 17.09.2016 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest recommending that a fresh sale notice be issued for settlement of the mining area inviting bids from the genuine bidders.

(3.) Since the respondent No.7 was adjudged as the technically valid highest bidder, hence, the decision of the authorities to go for a retender was challenged by him before this Court by filing WP(C) No.6019/2016 wherein, an interim order dated 04.10.2016 was passed by this Court suspending the process of resale. Eventually, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by order dated 9.11.2016 on being withdrawn by the petitioner.