Iman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, while Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5.

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved with the settlement of the Baralimari-Gadhowa via Barbari Kacharigaon, Nizsaharia ferry service with the respondent No.5 for a period of 2 years, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.02.2024.

¶22

The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No.5 had submitted his bid for the Baralimari-Gadhowa via Barbari Kacharigaon, Nizsaharia ferry service and the Gerimari-Kachasila-via-Serang ferry service, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.02.2024. The respondent No.5 had submitted the highest bid for both the ferry services. However, the respondent No.5 had withdrawn his tender for the Gerimari-Kachasila-via-Serang ferry service, due to which his Earnest Money

¶23

Page No.# 3/7

¶24

Deposit (EMD) was forfeited and the respondent No.5 was prohibited from submitting any tender in the Inland Water Transport (IWT) Department for a continuous period of 4 years, i.e., for the calendar years 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027, as per Clause 16 of the NIT.

¶25

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is not making a challenge to the settlement of the ferry service with the respondent no.5, on the ground that the respondent no.5 has been debarred from participating in any future tender. He submits that the only ground of challenge to the settlement of the ferry service with the respondent no.5, is on the ground that the respondent no.5 has not submitted “No Objection Certificates” (NOCs) from the copattadars, in respect of the periodic patta land, which is to secure the bid amount of the respondent no.5 in terms of Clause-7 & 8 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Notice dated 08.02.2024. He accordingly submits that the settlement of the ferry service with the respondent no.5 should be set aside, as an essential condition of the Tender Notice has not been complied with.

¶26

Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that the respondent no.5 had submitted various land documents and in some of them, the petitioner with other persons, were co-pattadars. However, the respondent no.5 had submitted Land Valuation Certificates of an area measuring 26 Bighas 3 Kathas and 9 Lechas, out of which 19 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha were standing in the respondent no.5’s own name. She submits that as per the Certificate dated 06.06.2024 issued by the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Morigaon, the land belonging to the respondent no.5 individually, measuring 19 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha, was assessed at a value of

¶27

Page No.# 4/7

¶28

Rs.28,50,000/- which was enough to secure the bid amount of the respondent no.5 at Rs.14,50,000/-. As the respondent no.5 was the highest bidder, the ferry service was accordingly settled with the respondent no.5, while the petitioner was second highest bidder at Rs.9,51,786/-.

¶29

Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that there is no infirmity with the decision made by the State respondents, inasmuch as, the bid of the respondent no.5 was the highest and as the land of the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity, covered 19 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha, valued at Rs.28,50,000/-.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

The issue to be decided lies in a very narrow compass. The issue is whether the land of the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity, covered the bid amount quoted by the respondent no.5. The affidavit of the respondent no.3 is to the effect that the respondent no.5 had submitted Land Valuation Certificates measuring an area of 26 Bighas 3 Kathas and 9 Lechas, out of which 19 Bigha 0 Katha 0 Lecha was in the name of the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity. The land valuation of 19 Bigha 0 Katha 0 Lecha was Rs.28,50,000/-, in terms of the Certificate dated 06.06.2024 issued by the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Morigaon.

¶32

To verify whether the stand taken by the State respondents would justify the settlement of the ferry service with the respondent no.5, this Court would

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

have to look at Clause 7 & 8 of the Tender Notice, which states as follows :

¶35

“7. The tenderer have to submit Certificate in support of periodic patta land in his own name within the District or the Sub-division of value not less than the bid/tender money from the Deputy Commissioner "Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Sadar Sub-divisional Officer of the District or Subdivisional Officer (Civil) of the Sub-division concerned and Circle Officer our behalf of Deputy Commissioner.

¶36

The tenderer must submit up to date Non Encumbrance certificate regarding the Land under periodic patta from the D.C. AD.C/SDO Sadar/S.D.O.(Civil) of Sub-Division or concerned Sub-Registrar. The tenderer have also to submit Land revenue clearance Certificate from the concerned Mouzadar.

¶37

If there are more than one pattader, N.O.C. from Co-pattadar have to be submitted. The land documents and land valuation of a successful bidder against any ferry service will not be accepted in other ferry service if the valuation does not cover the total bid amount. Also only zonal value of land will be considered in the tender and no value will be considered other than land i.e (Value of Zirat/ tree etc. and house/building value on land will not be considered).”

¶38

A perusal of Clause 7 & 8 goes to show that a tenderer would have to submit Certificates in support of periodic patta land in his own name and if there are more than one pattadars in respect of a plot of land, NOCs have to be submitted by the co-pattadars. The records have been produced showing the land certificates submitted by the respondent no.5 without any NOCs from copattadars. Out of 7 land certificates which have been submitted by the respondent no.5 and which have been brought for perusal of this Court, this Court finds that only 2 of the land certificates are in the name of the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity. A perusal of the 2 land documents of the

¶39

Page No.# 6/7

¶40

respondent no.5 in his individual capacity, shows that the total area of the land in the individual name of the respondent no.5 totals 11 Bighas 8 Kathas and 6 Lechas of land. The other land certificates have more than one pattadars. The respondent no.5 has not submitted any NOCs from the other co-pattadars and as such, they cannot be taken into reckoning in terms of Clause 7 & 8 of the Tender Notice.

¶41

In view of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Notice at Clause 7 & 8, the Certificate dated 06.06.2024 issued by the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Morigaon stating that an area of 19 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha of land stand in the name of the respondent no.5 is valued at Rs.28,50,000/-, cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶42

In view of the above reasons, there is nothing to show that the land which is in the name of the respondent no.5 in his individual capacity, totalling 11 Bighas 8 Kathas & 6 Lechas, would cover the bid amount quoted by the respondent no.5. Besides the above, the respondent no.5 has violated Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Notice.

¶43

In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Others, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 , the Supreme Court has held that it was a settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.

¶44

Page No.# 7/7

¶45

In view of the reasons stated above, the settlement of the ferry service with the respondent no.5 in violation of Clause-8 of the Tender Notice is not sustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside.

¶46

The State respondents shall accordingly consider the case of the petitioner for settlement of the ferry service, as it deems fit and proper. The State respondents shall take a decision on the above direction, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then the department may run the ferry service.

¶47

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

Comparing Assistant

¶49

JUDGE

Iman Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iman Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rup Bhanu Nessa Alias Rup Bhanu Vs Union of India and 6 Others

M/S Nes Digboi Bogapani Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Reejeet Nunisa Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S S S Enterprise Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shahid Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.