ROHIT CHANDRA DAS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submitted a tender for settlement of No. S/ 25 Tarabari R. F. Coupe No. 20 of 1970 -71 under Singra Range in pursuance of a sale notice dated 20 -10 -1970 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. South Kamrup Division, Gauhati. He offered a sum of Rs. 13,175/ -. Some other tenderers including Respondent No. 5 also submitted tenders for settlement of the said coupe. Respondent No. 5 offered Rupees 18,888/ -. which was the highest offer. The Conservator of Forests, by his order dated 19 -2 -1971, settled the coupe in question with Respondent No. 5 at his tendered amount of Rs. 18,888/ -. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Governor of Assam against the said settlement made by the Conservator of Forests on several grounds. The Governor of Assam by order dated 4 -6 -1971 rejected the appeal and upheld the settlement made by the Conservator of Forests in favour of Respondent No. 5. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the said order of settlement passed by the Conservator of Forests and affirmed by the Governor of Assam, on appeal.

(2.) MR . J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the tender submitted by Respondent No. 5 was not a valid tender in the eye of law and therefore the settlement made in favour of Respondent No. 5 by the authority concerned was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submits that the settlement made in favour of Respondent No. 5 by the authority concerned being in clear violation of the provisions of the settlement rules, the authority concerned committed manifest error of law in settling the coupe with Respondent No. 5 and therefore the impugned order of settlement is liable to be quashed.The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his above submissions contends that the Respondent No. 5 failed to enclose a caste certificate with the tender as required under the settlement rules, in order to support his claim that he belonged to a preferential class. It is submitted that the settlement rules regarding tender having been not complied with, there was no valid tender and the authority ought to have refused to accept the tender of Respondent No. 5. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to Rule 6 (4) (iv) of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules. 1967 which rules admittedly govern the case before us.

(3.) FROM the original tender filed by Arun Kumar Das, Respondent No. 5 in the case, it is found that in his tender he stated that Backward community certificate was filed already. He also stated that he placed Bank Draft No: C/D 199280/71/99 dated 18 -1 -71 of Assam Co -operative Apex Bank, as evidence of earnest money deposited. The other documents necessary under the Rules were also filed. It is not disputed that Respondent No. 5 deposited the earnest money as required by Rule 5 (1) and (2). It is also not disputed that Arun Kumar Das, Respondent No. 5 belongs to other backward class, his sub -caste being "Kumar".