Allowed

Nilima Boro Alias Nilima Boro Kalita Alias Nilima Kalita v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2023WP(C)/7044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's bid for a sand mahal settlement due to a minor discrepancy in her surname signature. Setting aside the technical rejection as trivial and unsustainable, the court directed a re-conduct of the E-Auction and participation of the petitioner. The communication for work order issuance was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the bid rejection and the communication for work order issuance; directed re-conduct of the E-Auction with the petitioner allowed to participate.

Nilima Boro Alias Nilima Boro Kalita Alias Nilima… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010274672023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7044/2023

¶5

NILIMA BORO ALIAS NILIMA BORO KALITA ALIAS NILIMA KALITA WIFE OF SRI BINOY KALITA, R/O- MIRZA, P.O.- MIRZA, PIN- 781125, P.S.- PALASHBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶8

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037.

¶9

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T) LOWER ASSAM ZONE GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶10

4:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (T) CENTRAL ASSAM CIRCLE GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶11

5:THE TENDER COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCRUTINY OF BIDS OF THE TENDERERS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

I.E. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (T) CENTRAL ASSAM CIRCLE GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶14

6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KAMRUP WEST DIVISION BAMUNIGAON.

¶15

7:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER LOHARGHAT RANGE LOHARGHAT

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

08-12-2023

¶20

Heard Shri B. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

2. The matter pertains to settlement of a Sand Mahal, namely KWD/10/Batha No. 2 in the district of Kamrup.

¶22

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was the settlement holder of a Sand Mahal, namely, KWD/10/Batha No. 2 for the period 2016-2023. The petitioner has put on record a completion certificate in this regard. After completion of the said tenure, a fresh process has been initiated vide publication of an E-Auction Notice on 26.10.2023 in which, the petitioner along with few others had participated.

¶23

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that her bid was duly submitted. Since there was delay in notifying the results of the technical evaluation, the petitioner had obtained the said results by taking recourse to the RTI Act, 2005. From the reply obtained, the petitioner learnt that her technical bid has been rejected on the ground

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

that there was discrepancy in the signature of the petitioner.

¶26

5. I have heard Shri B. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Forest Department is represented by Shri K. P. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶27

6 . It transpires that the discrepancy for which the technical bids of the petitioner has been sought to be rejected as would be discernible from the observations made in the comparative statement is as follows:

¶28

“ In the digital signature Nilima Boro signed as Nilima Boro Kalita whereas she signed in the bid documents as Nilima Boro. Further, in the PAN Card & ADHAAR Card her name is Nilima Kalita in this regard, she has not submit any affidavit regarding her name.”

¶29

7. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the surname of the petitioner was Boro and she being married to one Shri Binoy Kalita, there was some change in the surname of the petitioner and therefore, there is no substantial change in her personality whether she signs as Nilima Boro or Nilima Boro Kalita or Nilima Kalita.

¶30

8. This Court vide order dated 06.12.2023 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and had accordingly fixed the matter for consideration today. It was further observed that the financial bids should not be opened or the financial auction should not be held till the next date fixed, if not already done.

¶31

9 . Shri Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that the ground of rejection appears to be trivial in nature. However, he has submitted that the financial bids were opened along with the technical bids on 17.11.2023 and the same was followed by an E-Auction held on 01.12.2023 wherein one bidder has been identified. He has further produced a copy of a communication dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Addl. CCF (T) to the PCCF and HoFF towards issuance of the Work

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

Order.

¶34

10 . This Court is of the opinion that though there appears that there may be some discrepancy in the surname of the petitioner in her digital signature, in view that her identity and credentials are not in doubt and she was the earlier settlement holder for a period of 7 years of the same Mahal which admittedly was without any blemish, rejection of her bid on technical grounds of the aforesaid nature does not appear to be justified as such discrepancy appears to be trivial in nature.

¶35

11 . In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed by holding the decision of the Department to reject the bid of the petitioner on technical grounds as unsustainable in law and consequently all further action including the communication dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Addl. CCF (T) to the PCCF and HoFF towards issuance of the Work Order are set aside. It is accordingly directed that the E-Auction be re-done and the petitioner be allowed to participate and the price bid of the petitioner be considered. The aforesaid direction would also be in sync with the requirement of public interest as there would be a possibility of fetching more revenue in the fresh E-Auction which has been directed to be done.

¶36

12 . Since the issue involves settlement of a Mahal where revenue of the State is concerned, the aforesaid exercise may be carried out expeditiously.

¶37

13 . Writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated above.

¶38

14 . The documents handed over by Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department including the communication dated 04.12.2023 are made part of the records.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Nilima Boro Alias Nilima Boro Kalita Alias Nilima Kalita v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilima Boro Alias Nilima Boro Kalita Alias Nilima Kalita v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

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

Md. Jiyaur Pasa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Krishna Chetri and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jagat Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smt. Anjala Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anjala Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Chabilal Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.