ASWINI HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order of settlement of Dhing Athgaon Market in favour of respondent No.4 Kanak Chandra Kalita. The bid of Kanak Chandra Kalita (respondent No.4) was Rs.4,23,402.00 and the bid of the writ petitioner was Rs.4,91,001.00. So there was almost a difference of Rs.69,000.00 - 70,000.00 and as a matter of fact Kanak Chandra Kalita (respondent No.4) was the fourth highest bidder, but the authority in its wisdom picked up this fourth highest bidder and gave the settlement to him. This is absolutely undesirable and against the law laid down by this Court in a number of decision and only rely on (1988) 2 GLR 44 (Nurul Islam Vs. State of Assam & others) wherein this Court considering the provision of the same Act pointed out that the Legislature has given the power to settle the bazar/hats for the purpose of augmentation of revenue and nothing else and the authority is under legal obligation to secure the best price available while settling such bazar/hats. The reasons which has been given in this case for not accepting the bid of highest bidder was there will be no increase in the rent and tools of the market and as such there was no justification to accept the bid of the writ petitioner. This is absolutely a fanciful reason. Nowhere it has been stated for the bid of the writ petitioner is a speculative one. No doubt, the minimum price fixed by the authority for bazar was Rs.4 lakhs and the bid of respondent No.4 was above the minimum price fixed. But that does not empower the authority to accept the bid of the fourth highest bidder without giving adequate and reasonable ground not to accept the bid of other persons. Accordingly, I find that this order of settlement is absolutely without authority of law which is liable to be quashed. But I do not like to quash the order of settlement as because the settlement will come to an end by the end of 31st of March. 1998. But it is made clear that in future when this market will be settled, the authority shall bear in mind the law regarding settlement of bazar/hats and shall not adopt an arbitrary-, capricious ,and fanciful approach in making the settlement of the bazar/hats because if it is done, the faith of the people in general over the action of the authority stands eroded. After all the authority is bound to maintain the fairness and transparency, such an action. I hope and trust that the authority shall maintain the same in future.

(2.) Heard Dr. H. Das, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and also Mr. B. Goswami, learned Govt Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) This disposes of this writ application.