Disposed

Bhaskar Bharali and 2 Ors. v. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Aug 2022WP(C)/5016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the transparency of a tender for fishery settlement, alleging procedural irregularities and failure to consider joint representations. The court directed the respondent to consider pending representations from interested bidders before finalizing the decision and informed petitioners of the outcome in writing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 2 to consider the representation dated 30/07/2022 by interested bidders before finalizing the tender and to intimate the outcome to petitioners in writing.

Bhaskar Bharali and 2 Ors. Vs Assam Fisheries… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010151622022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5016/2022

¶5

BHASKAR BHARALI AND 2 ORS.

¶6

SON OF LATE JUGAL BHARALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAKAPAHUWA, POST OFFICE- GOBINDAPUR, POLICE STATION- DHAKUAKHANA, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.

¶7

2: JOY CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE NUMAL CHANDRA DAS SECRETARY BALAHI CHAMPARA FISHERY SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALIJAN KAIBARTA POST OFFICE- MORNOIBEEBEJIA POLICE STATION- GHILAMARA DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.

¶8

3: SUKRITI DAS SON OF JOY KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BOLAHIGAON POST OFFICE- DEOLIA POLICE STATION- GHILAMARA DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHACHAL, VIP ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781036.

¶11

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

CHACHAL VIP ROAD

Page No.# 2/3

GUWAHATI- 781036.

3:ANIL DAS SON OF DULESHWAR DAS

¶17

POST OFFICE- BAHADUR MOUT POLICE STATION- NORTH LAKHIMPUR

¶18

DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. PIN CODE- 787052

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 03/08/2022

¶24

Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Sharmah, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC, appearing for the respondents.

¶25

It appears that the respondent no. 1 had floated Tender Notice No. 5/22 inviting bids for settlement of the Balahi Champara Fishery of Lakhimpur District. As per the NIT, 08/07/2022 was the last date for submission of bids and also the date of opening of tenders. However, according to the writ petitioners, the tenders were not opened on that date nor was any subsequent date of opening of tenders notified. On 25/07/2022, the respondents have published a list of technically qualified bidders and notified that the financial bids would be opened on 29/07/2022. Thereafter, it was found that the respondent no. 3 was the highest bidder.

¶26

According to the petitioners, the respondents have adopted a complete non-transparent procedure by opening the technical bids behind the back of the petitioners. It is also the submission of Mr. Banik that the respondent no. 7 was not a resident within 120 KM of the fishery. However, the

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

respondent authorities are contemplating to award the settlement in favour of the respondent no. 3 only due the higher price quoted by him. Mr. Banik has also submitted that as many as ten tenderers had submitted representation dated 30/07/2022 before the respondent no. 3 ventilating their grievances in the matter. However, the same has not been considered till date.

¶29

Mr. P. Sharmah, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC, submits that the order of settlement has not yet been issued and the department is following a completely transparent and proper procedure in processing the bids. However, he would have no objection if the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners before any final decision is taken in the matter of settlement of the fishery. Mr. Banik also agrees to the said recourse.

¶30

In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the claims and counter claims of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the respondent no. 2 shall consider the representation dated 30/07/2022 submitted by the interested bidders including the petitioners and take appropriate decision in the matter before finalizing the tender.

¶31

Whatever be the outcome of the said exercise, the same shall be intimated to the petitioners in writing.

¶32

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

sukhamay

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Bhaskar Bharali and 2 Ors. v. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Bharali and 2 Ors. v. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. 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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Dipjyoti Borah @ Deepjyoti Bora and 2 Ors.

Dimpee Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Bogdung Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samity Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Jalan Iron and Steel Company Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Tax Bar Association, Guwahati Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Utpal Thakur Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.