A writ petition sought cancellation of the settlement of the Lathimara Ferry Service awarded to a bidder who had allegedly submitted overstated land documents. The court found no prejudice to the public exchequer and declined intervention; the petition was dismissed with settlement under a fresh tender effective from the next season.
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.# 1/4
GAHC010268992023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6919/2023
TAJ UDDIN MAJUMDER
S/O- URFIZ ALI MAZUMDER, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O. LATHIMARA, P.S. KALIGORA, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788805
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 KAMRUP (M)
3:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION CHANDMARI T.V STATION ROAD TARAPUR SILCHAR PIN- 788003 DISTRICT- CACHAR
4:HARIMOHAN SINGHA S/O- LATE CHAUBAN SINGHA R/O- DURGA NAGAR PART-II P.S. UDHARBAND P.O. GOSAIPUR
Page No.# 2/4
DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78803
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
14.03.2024
Page No.# 3/4
land documents showing that his land covered an area of 5 Bigha 15 Kathas 12 Chatak, though in reality it was only 4 Bighas 11 Kathas 8 Chatak, inasmuch as, 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 4 Chatak had been sold by the respondent no.4, prior to submitting his tender document in pursuant to the NIT dated 04.11.2012. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the respondent no.4 had not submitted correct documents before the tendering authority, the settlement of the Ferry Service with the respondent no.4 should be set aside. He also submits that the period of settlement of the Ferry Service will expire on 31.03.2024.
4 Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the Transport Department, on the other hand submits that the respondent no.4 had quoted Rs.3,94,565/-, while the writ petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs.2,55,000/-. She submits that a complaint had been submitted by the petitioner against the respondent no.4 and the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar had submitted a report on the land document of the respondent no.4, which is to the effect that the respondent no.4 had sold land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 4 Chataks out of his total land measuring 4 Bighas 17 Kathas. However, the remaining land covered his quoted bid.
Page No.# 4/4
the merits of the case. Accordingly, in view of fact that the submission of the incorrect land document by the respondent no.4 has not caused any prejudice to the public exchequer or to the public interest, this Court is not inclined to exercise it’s discretionary power at his stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Should the ferry service settlement with respondent no.4 be set aside on the ground that he submitted incorrect land documents during tendering?
Does the discrepancy in respondent no.4's land documents prejudice the public exchequer or public interest?
Taj Uddin Majumder
The State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department
The Director Inland Water Transport Assam
Executive Engineer Inland Water Transport Division
Harimohan Singha
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
