Gauhati High Court
Raja Borah vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 29 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010186592022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6002/2022
RAJA BORAH
S/O LT. SOMESHWAR BORAH R/O MACHARHAT P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT DIST.
JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI, PIN-781006 KAMRUP
(M) ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
ASSAM
DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
JORHAT
ASSAM PIN-785001
4:THE JORHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD
JORHAT
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN JORHAT DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785001
5:THE CHAIRMAN
JORHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD
DIST.JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-785001
Page No.# 2/5
6:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
JORHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD
DIST.JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-785001
7:ACHURJYA MUKTIYAR
S/O LT INDESWAR MUKTIYAR
R/O MACHARHAT
WARD NO. 14
PO AND P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-785001
8:NABAJYOTI BORUAH
S/O RAMCHANDRA BORUAH
R/O MACHARHAT
WARD NO. 14
PO AND P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 29-09-2022
Heard Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.
B.D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the Jorhat
Municipal Board, i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate,
Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The Jorhat Municipal Board, i.e. the respondent No. 4 had issued Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) dated 23-06-2022 inviting bids for settlement of as many as 13 numbers of
markets/ stands for the financial year 2022-23, i.e. w.e.f. 01-08-2022 to 31-03-2023.
The petitioner herein had submitted his bid for settlement of "B.B. Hall". On
Page No.# 3/5
opening the bids it turned out that there were 28 bidders whose tenders were found to be
technically responsive.
The petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs. 20,82,501/- and had emerged as the 2 nd
highest bidder whereas the private respondent No. 7, who had quoted a sum of Rs.
11,12,824/-, was the 8th highest bidder. Notwithstanding the same the Jorhat Municipal
Board had awarded the settlement of the market by the order dated 03-09-2022 in favour
of the respondent No. 7 at his offered rate. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition
has been filed.
Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Board submits that
representations had been received by the Board complaining about the high rates
demanded by the settlement holders and during the last two years, remissions had also to
be granted by the Board. As such, a decision has been taken not to award the settlement
in favour of the higher bidders. Therefore, taking into consideration the experience of the
bidders, the Board has taken a decision to award the settlement orders in favour of the
bidders quoting lower price.
Responding to the above, Mr. Chakraborty has argued that remissions were given
due to the outbreak of pandemic Covid-19. Under the terms and conditions of settlement,
no settlement holder can charge rates in excess of what has been fixed by the Board.
Therefore, the stand of the Board is totally untenable in law. By relying upon a decision of
this Court rendered in the case of Minku Hazarika Vs. State of Assam reported in
(2017) 5 GLT 696, Mr. Chakraborty further submits that in a exactly similar situation,
Page No.# 4/5
pertaining to tenders invited by the Jorhat Municipal Board for settlement of the markets,
this Court had set aside the orders of settlement issued in favour of the bidders quoting
lower price by ignoring higher bids, by rejecting the same stand taken by the Jorhat
Municipal Board. The decision rendered in the case of Minku Hazarika (Supra),
according to Mr. Chakraborty is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. As such, the order of settlement is liable to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides and
have also gone through the materials available on record. After a careful reading of the
statements in the writ petition, I find that this is yet another instance where the Jorhat
Municipal Board, after inviting bids for settlement of markets/ stand including the "B.B.
Hall", based on financial quotes made by the bidders, has issued the order of settlement
in favour of the bidder who has quoted much lower price. In the case of Minku
Hazarika (Supra) this Court has clearly deprecated such practice of the Board and had
set aside similar orders of settlement issued in favour of the private respondents by giving
elaborate reasoning. Notwithstanding the same, the same mistake has again been
committed by the Board in the present series as well. The action on the part of the Jorhat
Municipal Board, apart from being illegal, also appears to be contemptuous on the face of
the record. This matter would, therefore, call for further examination.
Issue notice of motion returnable on 07-11-2022.
Since Ms. M. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam has accepted notice on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the
Jorhat Municipal Board has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, no
Page No.# 5/5
formal notice is required to be sent to the said respondents.
Extra copies of the writ petition, requisite in numbers, be furnished to the learned
departmental counsel within a week from today so as to enable them to obtain
instruction.
Petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon respondent Nos. 7 and 8 by
registered post with A/D.
Heard on the prayer of interim relief.
Due to the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that the instant case is
covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Minku Saikia (Supra). As such, as an
ad-interim measure it is hereby provided that operation of the impugned order dated 03-
09-2022 shall remain suspended until further order(s). Consequently, it will be open for
the Jorhat Municipal Board to run and manage the "B.B. Hall" by making an interim
arrangement without, however, involving any of the bidders including the respondent No.
7.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
