This petition challenged the settlement of a weekly market tender, alleging the respondent fudged bid amounts. The court held disputed facts on tender anomalies cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion.
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.# 1/6
GAHC010012632024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/358/2024
HEM CHANDRA SARMA S/O LATE PADU RAM SARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ADHAMAPARA, P.O.- RAM HARI, P.S.- MANGALDOI, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784529.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
2:THE DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI ASSAM.
4:THE PASCHIM MANGALDOI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O.- MANGALDOI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM.
5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PASCHIM MANGALDOI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT PO.- MANGALDOI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/6
6:SIRAJUL HOQUE S/O- SOHRAB ALI R/O - VILLAGE KANAI CHUBA P.O.- HOWLY MOHANPUR P.S.- MANGALDOI MOUZA- RANGAMATI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM (CAVEATOR) 7:BIPUL DAS ZONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PASCHIM MANGALDOI DEVELOPMENT ZONE P.S.- MANGALDOI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. RUKMINI BARUA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER
Date : 13.02.2024
Page No.# 3/6
the Paschim Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat, in collusion with the Zonal Development Officer, produced a new Comparative Statement by including the name of the respondent No.6 in order to be settled with the market vide settlement order dated 23.11.2023. The petitioner’s further case is that the respondent no.6 had submitted two bids one amounting to Rs.2,92,000/-, while the other bid was for Rs.99,999.99. However, the same Bank Draft No.029034 dated 06.06.2022 had been used by the respondent no.6 in both the bids, for deposit of the earnest money.
Page No.# 4/6
there was involvement of the some officials in the Pashim Mangaldai Anchalilk Panchayat in the whole episode, the higher authorities may initiate further necessary steps in this regard. The same is reflected in the letter no.DZP/Misc/1216/2023-24/841 dated 06.10.2023 issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Darrang Zilla Parishad, Mangaldai. Besides the above, the parawise comments to the present writ petition sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zilla Parishad, is to the effect that in view of the bid value of the respondent no.6 being changed from 2,92,000/- and replacing it with Rs.99,999.99, without the knowledge of the respondent no.6, the respondent no.6 was asked to submit a new filled up tender form. Accordingly, a new tender form was filled up and submitted, vide letter dated 01.11.2023, in the office of the respondent no.3.
The NIT dated 11.04.2023 was published by the Pashim Mangaldai Anchalilk Panchayat for settlement of the Deonagaon Weekly Market. The last date for submission of the tenders was 06.06.2023 at 2 p.m. and bids were opened at 3 p.m. on the same day.
Page No.# 5/6
Page No.# 6/6
no.6 to submit a new tender document, inasmuch as, the rates submitted in his tender documents at the time of opening of the tender on 06.06.2023 was Rs. 2,92,000/-, which had apparently been altered to Rs.99,999.99. The above facts go to show that the respondent no.6 had submitted two tender documents, as there was fudging of original tender document of the respondent No.2. This Court is of the view that the respondent no.6 cannot be penalised on the ground that the respondent No.6 had submitted the second bid documents with same earnest money, due to the State respondents asking him to do the same, as the earlier bid amount had been fudged. In any event, in terms of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, the market is to be settled with the highest bidder.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can decide disputed questions of fact regarding alleged fudging of tender documents.
Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the settlement of the market with the respondent.
Whether the High Court can quash the settlement order of a public procurement tender.
HEM CHANDRA SARMA S/O LATE PADU RAM SARMA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DARRANG ZILLA PARISHAD MANGALDOI ASSAM
THE PASCHIM MANGALDOI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT
SIRAJUL HOQUE S/O- SOHRAB ALI
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
