BRUSHLIN M. SANGMA Vs. GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 vide Sealed Tender Notice dated 11th September, 2018 had invited tenders from interested persons or parties, for collection of tolls by way of settlement of haats and ferry ghats for the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020. The petitioner participated in the tender process and also deposited 30% of the Sorkari Dak (Reserved amount) as security deposit by way of Bank draft in favour of the respondent No. 2 on 16th October, 2018. Thereafter, a list of successful tenderers of all the Haats of West Garo Hills District for the year 2019-2020 was declared, wherein the petitioner, was shown as having the highest bid amount for Rongram market. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2, vide office order No. 154 dated 3rd December, 2018 after scrutinizing the result of all the Haats of Garo Hills for the year 2019-2020 as per Section 11 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Market Tax) Regulation 1970 validated the result declared on 30th November, 2018, and allowed the successful tenderers to deposit their bid/tender amount. The Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council then held a meeting on the 12th February, 2019 to discuss the matter regarding settlement of 14 Haats, which had been kept pending due to public complaints, and re-scrutinized the tender papers. Though after verification, it was found that the papers were valid and genuine, the Executive Committee however, found that the amounts offered were very high and unreasonable, in the context of the present market value of these Haats.

(2.) The Executive Committee of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, then decided to settle the Haats by disregarding the result of the tender process and also the highest bids that was offered for settlement of the Haats. The reason for such a decision it seems, was on the ground that settlement of the Haats at unreasonably high amounts, would lead to un-healthy bidding in future and small local businessmen/traders would be adversely affected, as big players will step in, which would result in the monopolization of the business by these entities. In this backdrop, the respondents settled the Rongram Haat in favour of the bidder who had bid lower than the petitioner. The writ petitioner has assailed this decision, of the respondents No. 1 and 2 as he had quoted Rs. 20,10,200/- which was the highest bid but the Haat was settled with the private respondent who had bid Rs. 20,00,000/- which is lower by only a marginal difference. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the writ petitioner had participated in the tender process, he had emerged as the highest bidder for Rongram Haat and this fact is reflected in the list of the successful tenderers (Annexure-IV) for all the Haats in West Garo Hills for the year 2019-2020, published by the respondents themselves. Thereafter, he submits, by order No. 154 dated 3rd December, 2018 (Annexure-V) the respondents had directed the successful tenderers to deposit the bid amounts w.e.f. 4th December, 2018 to 13th December, 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that after the tender process was over, and results had been declared, the respondent Executive Committee held a meeting on 12th February, 2019 to discuss the settlement, and in the meeting, the Executive Committee re-scrutinized the tender papers and though they found the same to be valid in all respects, applied condition No. 7 of the Tender Notice for the year 2019-2020, dated 11th September, which permitted the respondents to not accept the highest bid, if the same was deemed to be too high or unreasonable .