Allowed

Paban Hazarika v. Basu Dev Biswas and 6 Ors. E

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2023WA/248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal against a Single Bench order regarding a fishery bid settlement, the Division Bench held that the lower court reversed the valid bid without objective consideration, finding it performatory, and thus interfered and reversed it.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 19.04.2022 was interfered and reversed. WP(C) No.3454/2020 was restored and listed for fresh hearing.

Paban Hazarika Vs Basu Dev Biswas and 6 Ors. E — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010109522022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA/248/2022

¶5

PABAN HAZARIKA

¶6

S/O- LT. DINA NATH HAZARIKA, VILL AND P.O. TETELISORA, P.S. KAMPUR, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782624

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

BASU DEV BISWAS AND 6 ORS. E S/O- LT. SWARUP BISWAS, VILL- BORUNGURI, P.O. LAO PANI, P.S. KATCHUWA, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782425

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR, GHY-06

¶10

3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD CHACHAL, VIP ROAD, GHY-36.

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, ASSAM MEEN BHAWAN, GOPINATH NAGAR GHY-16, ASSAM.

¶12

5:THE ADDL. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR, GHY-06

¶13

6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER, NAGAON

¶14

DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001.

¶15

7:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER (MEEN), NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM PIN- 78200

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr. B.D. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.D. Choudhury, Advocate.

¶18

For the Respondents : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

¶19

Mr. P. Sarma, Standing Counsel, AFDC for respondent No.3.

¶20

– B E F O R E –

¶21

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶23

01.06.2023

¶24

The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein, who was respondent No.7 in the writ petition (successful bidder), being aggrieved of the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.3454/2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was accepted and the Bid settlement of No.58 Lao Meen Mahal Fishery in the district of Nagaon made in favour of the appellant/respondent No.7 was interfered and the AFDC was directed to award the Bid settlement to the respondent No.1 herein.

¶25

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and the other material placed on record, we find that the bid of the appellant was accepted and the bid of three other contenders including that of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner were rejected by the Managing Director, AFDC on the ground that their bids were technically defective.

¶26

The learned Single Bench, however, went to observe that in the case at hand, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) was considered to be a technically sound bidder and his financial bid offering Rs.11 lakh/year for the settlement was the highest and thus, the contract was awarded to him.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

We find that the said observation of the learned Single Bench that the bid of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was found technically sound was arrived at without giving any reasons for such an observation.

¶29

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent AFDC, a pertinent assertion was made that the technical bid of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was found defective.

¶30

It appears that the decision of the learned Single Bench was made on the basis of the order passed in the writ petitions, viz., WP(C) No.2762/2020 and WP(C) No.3420/2020 and as affirmed by the Division Bench by common judgment and order dated 05.02.2021 passed in WA Nos.8/2021 and 27/2021. It was held that these decisions would cover the controversy. However, no discussion was made by the learned Single Bench for drawing a parity in the facts discussed by the Court in the aforesaid two matters and those prevailing in the case at hand.

¶31

In this background, the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, having been passed without objective consideration and discussion of the material available on record, does not stand to scrutiny and is thus interfered and reversed.

¶32

The WP(C) No.3454/2020 shall be restored to its original number and shall be listed before the Bench having roster to hear and decide the same afresh as per law. The writ appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Paban Hazarika v. Basu Dev Biswas and 6 Ors. E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paban Hazarika v. Basu Dev Biswas and 6 Ors. E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Disciplinary Authority and Deputy General Manager and 4 Ors. Vs Hari Mohan Dharikar E

Salim Uddin Laskar @ Monai Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anil Yadav Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Registrar of Co. Operative Societies, Assam Vs Jiabur Rahman Laskar and 6 Ors.

The Registrar of Co. Operative Societies, Assam Vs Jiabur Rahman Laskar and 6 Ors.

Niloy Bhusan Singha Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.