NIPEN DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the order of settlement of the Bihara Cattle Market under Golaghat Paschim Anchalik Panchayat dated 28.06.2019 issued in favour of the private respondent No.6 has been put under challenge. Since all these writ petitions are founded on common questions of law and facts hence, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am disposing of the same at the stage of admission hearing by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. B. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5122/2019, Mr. M. R. Sodial, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7469/2019 and Mr. P. K. Munir, learned counsel for the WP(C) No.8134/2019.I have also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department, Assam and Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the official respondents. Mr. H. C. Sarma, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the private respondent in all the three writ petitions.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are these. The West Golaghat Anchalik Panchayat had floated an NIT dated 29.05.2019 inviting bids for settlement of various markets/ ghats/ beels including the Bihara Cow Market, for the year 2019-2020. In response to the NIT dated 29.05.2019, all the three writ petitioners, besides four others including the respondent No 6, had submitted their bids. On opening the bids, it was found that the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5122/2019 had quoted an amount of Rs.52,10,500/- and was the 2ndhighest bidder; the respondent No. 6 had quoted Rs.48,35,216/- and was the 3rd highest; the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7469/2019 had quoted an amount of Rs.40,41,000/- and had emerged as the 4th highest bidder, whereas the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.8134/2019 had quoted an amount of Rs.17,49,039/- and was placed at the 6th position. The highest bidder i.e. Sri Mahendra Pegu had quoted Rs.73,51,253/- but his tender was found to be defective and hence rejected. The bid of the 2nd highest bidder i.e. the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5122/2019 was also rejected on the ground that he had failed to furnish sufficient land documents as surety covering the bid value. Consequently, the bid of the 3rd highest bidder i.e. the respondent No.6 was accepted and accordingly, the impugned settlement order dated 28.06.2019 was issued in his favour.