Petitioner challenged refusal to refund security deposit after failing to submit documents and deposit money within tender limits. Court held forfeiture unauthorized and ordered refund.
Refund of security amount deposited by the petitioner to the Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat / Barpeta Zilla Parishad within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010107282022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 3712/2022
Nurul Islam,
S/o - Late Ansher Ali,
Village – Shawara Chara Pather, P.O. –Chikni, District - Barpeta, Assam.
………………Petitioner
- Versus -
Represented by the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Assam,
Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
Barpeta, District – Barpeta, Assam.
P.O. – Kalgachia, District – Barpeta, Assam.
Page No.# 2/9
……………….Respondents
Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. H. Ali, Advocate Respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Mr. N.K. Debnath, Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order : 17.03.2023
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Debnath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.
Page No.# 3/9
before the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad [the respondent no. 3].
| Sl. No. | Name of the bidders | Bid value offered |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Kouchar Alom Khan | ₹35,50,050.00 |
| 2. | PradeepDas | ₹10,80,000.00 |
| 3. | Jaher Ali | ₹7,77,770.99 |
| 4. | Hazarat Ali | ₹4,95,000.00 |
| 5. | Mokaddes Ali | ₹3,85,505.00 |
| 6. | Nurul Islam[thepetitioner] | ₹2,95,000.00 |
| 7. | Shukur Ali | ₹2,69,005.00 |
| 8. | Abdullah | ₹1,71,551.00 |
| 9. | Ashraf Ali | ₹1,00,000.00 |
Page No.# 4/9
Page No.# 5/9
requisite documents mentioned in Clause 22, Clause 23 and Clause 24 of the Tender Notice and to deposit the security amount @ 30% of the bid value plus 1st installment amount @ 20% of the bid value within a period of 7 [seven] days from the date of issue of the Notice of Acceptance of Tender, with the observation that in the event of failure to furnish the requisite documents and to deposit the amounts within the stipulated time period of 7 [seven] days, the offer for settlement of the Ghat would be cancelled with forfeiture of earnest money and the settlement would be offered to the next highest bidder. After failure of Sri Kouchar Alom Khan to comply with the conditions incorporated in the Notice of Acceptance of Tender dated 31.07.2021, the same kind of Notices of Acceptance of Tender were issued to the bidders, viz. [i] Sri Pradeep Das on 08.08.2021; [ii] Sri Jaher Ali on 18.08.2021; [iii] Sri Hazrat Ali on 31.08.2021; and [iv] Sri Nurul Islam [the petitioner] on 15.09.2021; at their respective bid values. The records of settlement also contain two letters from Sri Hazrat Ali and Sri Mokaddes Ali, both dated 08.11.2021, by which they expressed that they had withdrawn their bids.
Page No.# 6/9
Page No.# 7/9
Page No.# 8/9
Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 . The Notice of Acceptance of Tender dated 15.09.2021 had also mentioned that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the requisite documents, mentioned therein, and deposit the security amount and 1st installment amount, mentioned therein, the offer for the settlement would be cancelled along with the forfeiture of the earnest money only and it did not mention that any security amount to be deposited by the petitioner would be forfeited if the petitioner fails to fulfill the conditions therein within a period of 7 [seven] days. The stand taken by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit is to the effect that due to failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions incorporated in the Notice of Acceptance of Tender dated 15.09.2021, the security amount wound stand forfeited by the Zilla Parishad is not sustainable in law. Such forfeiture was neither authorized by of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, nor of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002, nor by any of the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice dated 11.05.2021. In such view of the matter, other than the earnest money deposited by the petitioner, any other amount retained by the respondent Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat / Barpeta Zilla Parishad is unauthorized in law and the same are required to be returned to the petitioner, who failed to fulfill the conditions stipulated by the Notice of Acceptance of Tender dated 15.09.2021 issued by the issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad [the respondent no. 3] offering the settlement of Sawarachora Pathar Ghat to the petitioner .
Page No.# 9/9
15.09.2022 within a period of 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the security deposit paid by the petitioner to the authorities can be forfeited upon their failure to comply with the terms of the acceptance of tender within the stipulated time.
Whether the refunding of the security amount was in accord with the tender notice and the Panchayat Rules.
What relief is available to a bidder who failed to comply with tender conditions regarding document submission and security deposit.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Nurul Islam
The State of Assam
Barpeta Zilla Parishad
Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
