EK MAWLONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unusual writ petition. Unusual, because all the writ petitions and criminal petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482, Cr.P.C. respectively taken up by me heretofore, were for seeking the intervention of this Court either for quashing FIRs or for quashing criminal proceedings, but in this case, neither FIR nor criminal proceeding has been registered against the petitioner. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner, a politician by occupation, was initially elected as Member of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong in the year 1972 and was thereafter elected from time to time as Member of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly till 2003. He also held the post of Chief Minister of the State till 9.12.2001, when he was forced to tender his resignation to the Governor due to the issue concerning the Kolkatta Meghalaya House Deal, which is the subject-matter of this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the idea of reconstruction of Meghalaya House at Kolkatta was mooted in the year 1999, when he was not yet in the Government, and the same was initiated by the General Administration Department (GAD), which was of the view that the House required reconstruction, but paucity of fund stood in the way and suggested that some interested parties be invited to work with the Government in a Joint Venture Project. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposal was approved by the then Minister of GAD, and not by him, as he came Chief Minister only on 8.3.2000 and that the related file was placed before him as Chief Minister sometime in the month of August-September, 2000, when the Chief Secretary requested his approval for extension of time for calling the tender on the ground that some more time was required to study the terms and conditions of the draft tender, which were found not satisfactory. Though he did approve the extension proposal, further extension was, however, sought for as the matter was required to be consider by the High Power Committee to be constituted for the purpose comprising of key departments of the Government to be chaired by the Chief Secretary. The State Cabinet eventually constituted the High Power Committee as suggested. According to the petitioner, the High Power Committee, after several sittings and after obtaining the views of the Department of Finance, GAD, PWD and Revenue, ultimately approved the idea of sitting up the Joint Venture Project.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that in the aftermath of the approval by the High Power Committee, a fresh tender was called on 15.1.2001 by giving thirty days time to interested parties for submission of their bids. In response to the NIT, as many as 13 parties submitted their bids, an after evaluating the various bids by preparing a comparative statement, M/s. Asian Housing Construction Ltd. (AHCL) was found to be the most suitable and was accordingly recommended for acceptance of its offer. It is asserted by the petitioner that the recommendation was discussed by the Cabinet a couple of times, but due to the objection made by Shri T. H. Rngad, MLA, the matter was referred to him, and other experts by the GAD. After this exercise, according to the petitioner, the GAD was of the opinion that the Joint Venture Project with AHCL was a good project and thereafter endorsed the file to the Planning and Finance Departments, which eventually approved the project, whereupon the matter was placed before him in his capacity as the Chief Minister for final approval. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that he having full confidence in his ministerial colleagues and officials of the concerned Departments, duly endorsed his approval whereafter the agreement with AHCL came to be executed on 29.5.2001. According to the petitioner, till then, there was no question raised on the soundness of the agreement from any quarters.