JEWTI N.G.O. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in both the cases. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions, may be noticed as follows :-

(3.) Referring to the documents available on record Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the CS prepared on 06.09.2014, the bid submitted by the writ petitioner was initially found to be technically deficient on three counts, viz., (1) neighbourhood certificate was not given by the Circle Officer; (2) revenue offered is highly exorbitant; and (3) the father of the secretary of the petitioner society has been held to be a defaulter while he was functioning as a member of another society. However, submits Mr. Sarma, a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.11.2014 would go to show that the Government has rejected the bid of the writ petitioner on altogether different grounds. Inviting the attention of the court to the order dated 05.11.2014, Mr Sarma submits that the grounds stated therein mentions that the writ petitioner did not submit fishing experience certificate, balance-sheet and neighbourhood certificate but in reality, two neighbourhood certificates issued by the concerned Gaonburah and the President of the Gaon Panchayat had been submitted by the petitioner along with the tender. That apart, submits Mr. Sarma, a certificate issued by the District Fishery Development Officer (DFDO) Sivasagar, regarding the fishing experience of the members of the petitioner society was also enclosed with the tender document. The learned counsel submits that as per the NIT conditions there was no need for submission of balance-sheet and the fact that Ananda Hazarika, i.e. the father of the secretary of the petitioner society, was adjudged as a defaulter, while he was a member of another society, cannot have any bearing in the present tender process. As such, the bid of the writ petitioner, according to Mr. Sarma, could not have been held to be technically defective.