RIFAT MAZID Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy calling for adjudication pertains to the settlement of Dibrugarh-Majorbari Ferry Service for the period from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002 which has arised in the following circumstances.

(2.) Respondent No. 3. the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh issued notice inviting tenders for settlement of various ferries including Dibrugarh-Majorbari Ferry vide notification dated 8.2.99 for the period from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002. The settlement process was postponed due to some litigation. After the litigation was over the authority issued short tender notice refixing the date of receiving and opening of Ferry tender against all the ferries except Nimati-Kamalabari Ferry under Dibrugarh Division which was fixed on 12.3.99. For the Ferry in question viz Dibrugarh. Majorbari Ferry the respondents received 9 Nos. of tenders which were opened on 12.3.99 reflecting their respective offers/bids against their names which are cited below: Name Bid 1. Shri Rifat Mazid (Ptnr.)Rs.27,81,111/- 2. Shri Shaukat Mazid Rs.27,75,555/- 3. M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise (Respondent No. 4) Rs.21,00,000/- 4. Shri Munna Gogoi Rs.15,99,999/- 5. Shri Heman Hazarika Rs.15,93,000/- 6. Shri Karuna Hazarika Rs.12,63,000/- 7. Shri Dipak Bora Rs.12,11,303/- 8. Shri Kalyan Gogoi Rs.9,95,775/- 9. Shri Pradip Baruah Rs.9,55,555/-

(3.) According to the petitioner as being the highest bidder and his tender being also valid in all respects, he was expecting that the settlement will be made in his favour. He came to know about the impugned order being No.TWT 59/96/478 dated 26.4.99 whereby the respondents settled the Ferry in favour of respondent No. 4 M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, an unregistered partnership firm. According to the petitioner the copy of the order of settlement was not furnished to him in spite of the application and therefore, he had to file a separate writ petition for furnishing the copy. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order as being arbitrary/discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.