Disposed

Chila Boro v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/3622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging non-consideration of representation for remission of settlement amount due to new cattle trading restrictions and pandemics. Court directed petitioner to submit representation to State Government Principal Secretary for consideration with time limits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to Principal Secretary, State Government, P&RD Department within 7 days for consideration by passing a speaking order within 3 weeks.

Chila Boro Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010104042022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3622/2022

¶5

CHILA BORO

¶6

S/O- LATE BISHNURAM BORO, R/O- NO. 1 BORPUKHURI, P.O. JOHAMARI, P.S. TEZPUR, PIN- 784149, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE SONITPUR ZILLA PARISHAD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SONITPUR

¶11

TEZPUR-784001.

¶12

3:BIHAGURI REGIONAL PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER BIHAGURI REGIONAL PANCHAYAT DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784149

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER

¶15

01.06.2022

¶16

Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Dev Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department for all the respondents.

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India primarily aggrieved by non-consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking remission in respect of the settlement amount relating to Borgaon Weekly Market which has been settled in favour of the petitioner by an order of settlement dated 28.09.2021 for the period of settlement w.e.f. 29.09.2021 to 30.06.2022 at a proportionate amount of Rs. 8,48,781/- on the basis of the bid value offered by him @ Rs. 11,31,700/- for a year.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to publication of a Tender Notice dated 20.05.2021 inviting sealed bids for settlement of a nos. of markets, including Borgaon Weekly Market [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Market’, for short], the petitioner participated in the competitive bidding process by submitting his bid. As the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder, the Market came to be settled in favour of the petitioner by the order of settlement issued by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zilla Parishad, Tezpur on 28.09.2021. By the said order of settlement, the Market has been settled in favour of the petitioner for the Panchayat Financial Year : 2021-2022 and for the period w.e.f. 29.09.2021 to 30.06.2022 at a proportionate settlement amount of Rs. 11,31,700/- on the basis of the bid value offered by the petitioner for one year.

¶20

3.1. After the order of settlement, the petitioner had taken over possession of the Market by performing all the requisite formalities including the deposit of requisite security money. Immediately prior to the petitioner started operating the Market, the Assam Cattle Prevention Act, 2021 [‘the ACP Act’, for short], came to be passed by the Assam Legislative Assembly after receipt of assent of the Governor on 09.09.2021. The ACP Act came to be notified by a notification dated 15.09.2021 and the ACP Act was thereafter, published in the Official Gazette, in its issue dated 16.09.2021. After enactment of the ACP Act, according to the petitioner, it came into force immediately thereafter. It has been projected by the petitioner that after the ACP Act came into force, some restrictions came into place with regard to trading of cattle. Trade in cattle is one of the main sources of generating revenue in the Market. The petitioner has sought to project that a substantial part of the revenue in the

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

Market used to come from the trading in cattle. Apart from the restrictions imposed in the trading of cattle, the Market had to be operated for limited hours due to continuance of Covid-19 pandemic and then prevailing Covid-19 protocols, issued from the State Government and the Central Government from time to time and those factors have further adversely aggravated the situation in collection of revenue from the Market. Highlighting the above grievances, the petitioner had preferred representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Sonitpur Zilla Parisad on 20.05.2022.

¶23

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite submission of the representation before the respondent no. 2, no action has been initiated on the part of the respondent authorities in the Sonitpur Zilla Parishad to consider the matter of remission of the settlement amount in respect of the Market. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 has empowered the State Government to consider a case of remission in respect of a market on special grounds if the cause of disturbances are beyond the control of the locality and the authority.

¶24

Mr. Deb Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that it is the State Government which has been vested with the power under Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 to consider a case of remission in respect of a market on special grounds, mentioned therein, and thus, the respondent no. 2 has no power and authority to consider the representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner before him on 18.05.2022.

¶25

In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the power and authority is vested in the State Government under Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 to grant remission on grounds mentioned therein, I am of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit his representation before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department within 7 [seven] days from today and in the event such representation is filed, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

Rural Development Department shall take the said representation of the petitioner on Board for consideration and after due consideration, the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order within a period of 3 [three] weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, by taking into consideration the aspects highlighted by the petitioner therein. It is accordingly directed.

¶28

This order disposes of the writ petition.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Chila Boro v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chila Boro v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Humai Das, Vs Babul Das and 11 Ors.

Riju Prasad Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prativa Boro Kachari Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Basudev Sil @ Basudev Shil Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rouz Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.