INTAZ ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.9.98 issued by the Secretary and Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat settling the Kadong hat under Mandia Achalik Panchayat for the year 1998-99 in favour of the Respondent No.6.

(2.) The facts briefly are that tender was called for settlement of Kadong hat for the year 1998-99 and the Petitioner amongst others submitted their tenders on 16.6.98. Petitioner's case is that one Sri Mohendra Rohidas submitted the highest bid amounting to Rs. 1,54,551/- but his tender was rejected due to defects in his tender. Petitioner's bid was the second highest at Rs. 154551.00 The tender of the Respondent No. 6 was the 7th highest at Rs. 1,21,437/-. Yet by the impugned order dated 21.9.98 of the Secretary and Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat the settlement was made in favour of the Respondent No. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stating therein that the tender of the highest bidder was rejected because his guarantor has withdrawn his guarantee by submitting application and that although the Petitioner had offered a bid value of Rs. 1,54,501.00; the said bid is too high in comparison to the minimum bid value fixed by the Govt It is further stated in the affidavit in opposition of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that in the past it was seen that at the time of submission of tender, the tenderers offered very high rates to get the settlement of the market but after getting the settlement, the settlement holders did not pay the last kist money on the pretext that they had suffered loss. It is further stated in the said affidavit in opposition of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the tendency of the settlement holders was to make collections at higher rates from rural poor people who earn their livelihood by selling their agricultural products in the market. With a view to prevent harassment to the rural people and to protect their interest, the Government had to consider a reasonable rate for settlement of the market although the sale of market is a source of earning of Government revenue. It the said affidavit in opposition it has been further averred that since the rate offered by the Petitioner was found very high and the rate offered by the Respondent No.6 was reasonable, in the interest of the poor rural people, the Government had approved the tender value of the Respondent No.6 and the settlement was made in his favour accordingly.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that since Petitioner's bid was the highest valid bid, the authorities acted arbitrarily and in an unfair manner in settling the market in favour of the Respondent No. 6. He further submitted that the reasons given by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affidavit in opposition that the settlement was made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 as the bid of the Petitioner was exorbitantly high and that of the Respondent No.6 was reasonable and that the settlement of the market at reasonable rate was necessary in the interest of the poor rural people who sell their agricultural products at the market should not be accepted by the court because besides the Petitioner there were 8 other tenderers who had submitted tenders three of which were lower than that of the Respondent No. 6 and four of which were higher than that of the Respondent No. 6 but lower than that of the Petitioner. Yet the authorities by picking and choosing the rate offered by the Respondent No.6 settled the market in his favour. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. INDO Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 1997 2 GauLT 1 in which the Supreme Court has held that the tender process should be fair and transparent and where the authorities intend to settle a tender for a price within a validity range and not at the lowest rate, the authorities should state the viability range within which the tenders shall be considered by the authorities. But in the instant case the tender notice did not mention that the bids which are high and are not reasonable will not be considered and did not specify the range within which the rates would be considered reasonable.