HANIF ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM REP BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY T
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
State Of Assam Rep By Commissioner And Secretary T
Click here to view full judgement.
Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.B.Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Mr.T.C.Chutia, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent.
(2.) The petitioner in WP(C) No.126/2018 had challenged the legality and the validity of the office order under Memo No. D.Z.P./Bazar/General/393/2017-18/1130(A) dated 30.12.2017 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zila Parishad by which the settlement order dated 20.7.2017 issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the respondent No. 6 was settled with the Ramhari Bazar. The Pachim Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat issued notice inviting tender (NIT) on 9.5.2017 for settlement of Hats under its jurisdiction including Ramhari Bazar for the year, 2017-18. On 27.6.2017 the tender was opened by the standing committee of Pachim Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat), and the comparative statement was prepared. The petitioner was found to be the highest valid bidder amongst the tenderer. On the other hand, the tender of respondent No. 6 was found to be defective one. On the basis of a resolution adopted by the General Standing Committee of the Panchayat it was decided to settle the market in question, in favour of the petitioner and vide order dated 20.7.2017, the said market was settled with the petitioner at his quoted bid value of Rs.99,999.99/-. The Executive Officer, Panchayat vide his letter dated 20.7.2017 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zila Parishad sent the copy of the resolution dated 20.7.2017 passed by the standing Committee of the Panchayat alongwith the comparative statement of the Ramhari Bazar. On the other hand, as per the terms of the settlement order dated 20.7.2017 the petitioner deposited 30% of the quoted value amounting to Rs. 28,557/-, as the security money for the market. In the meantime, the respondent No.4 failed to approve/confirm the said settlement order dated 20.7.2017 following which a reminder was issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Further, the petitioner deposited the first installment of Rs.24,000/- to the Panchayat. But to the surprise of the present petitioner, respondent No.4 settled the Ramhari bazar with the private respondent No. 6 vide order dated 30.12.2017, thereby cancelling the settlement order dated 20.7.2017 issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Being aggrieved this writ petition being WP(C) No.126/2018 has been preferred for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2017.
(3.) The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 127/2018 also participated in the aforesaid NIT dated 30.12.2017 for Deonagaon Bazar. His bid value quoted was Rs. 99,999.98/- and the same was settled vide letter dated 20.7.2017 whereafter he deposited the 30% security deposit of his quoted value. The said settlement order was sent to the Chief Executive Officer of Darrang Zila Parishad for confirmation which was delayed by the respondent No. 4. Reminders were issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat and surprisingly, vide order dated 30.12.2017 issued by the respondent No.4, cancelled the settlement of the petitioner and settled the Deonogaon Bazar with the private respondent No.6. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for setting aside the impugned letter of respondent No. 4 bearing No. BZP/Bazar/General/393/2017-18 dated 30.12.2017.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.