KRISHNA CH. MANDAL Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order in case No. 37 E/81 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. The Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as District Collector called public tenders for settlement of No. 5 Labac Country Spirit Shop. The Petitioner was a tenderer. Shri Uma Shankar Sarma was the other tenderer. However, it was settled with the Petitioner by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (ADC). Shri Uma Kanta Sarma filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which held that the A.D.C. had no jurisdiction to make the settlement and also held that the Appellant before it, namely, Shri U.K. Sarma was ineligible to get the settlement. The Board, therefore, ordered the Deputy Commissioner to make the settlement afresh. The Petitioner was however not found to be ineligible or disqualified by the Board.

(2.) THE indubitable position is that the Board of Revenue has co -extensive power with the Settling Authority. If it found that the original authority had no jurisdiction to settle the shop with the Petitioners, the Board itself could have settled it with (sic) Petitioner more so when it did not find that the Petitioner had any disqualification. There is no reason why the Board Revenue did not exercise the power which it had. Therefore, it has been rightly urged by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner that the Tribunal has failed to exercise the (sic) vested in it by law and as such the impugned order (sic) be quashed.

(3.) THIS apart, we find that Rule 209 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 empowers the District Collectors to authorise other persons to preside at the sales. We extract the relevant provision of Rule 209: