Gauhati High Court
Nikunja Dutta vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 15 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010277802023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7146/2023
NIKUNJA DUTTA
PROPRIETOR OF M/S B.D. CONSTRUCTION, R/O- NIZ MANKATA,
MANKATA T.E. 1/159 RRA (A), DIBRUGARH, P.O. C.R. BUILDING, DIST.
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786003.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781003.
4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
IMPLEMENTATION
MINOR AND MICRO IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GHY-3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N TALUKDAR
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
15.12.2023
Heard Shri N Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved
by the rejection of his bid by the Evaluation Committee.
When this matter was listed on the last occasion i.e. 11.12.2023, this Court
had granted time to Shri N Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation
Department to obtain the instruction.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Shri Upadhyay, learned Standing
Counsel has procured written instruction dated 13.12.2023. As per the same,
the petitioner has been stated to be a Mouzadar of Mancotta Khanikar Mouza
under Dibrugarh West Revenue Circle which would be a disqualification for
consideration for allotment of the work. The instruction also states that this fact
was not disclosed in the tender process.
Shri Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that
there is no legal bar for a Mouzadar to be considered for such allotment. In this
regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Assam Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta , reported in AIR 1967
SC 884. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the following has been stated:
"8. A Mauzadar may own a tea garden and other landed property
and engage in trade or politics, but if any of his extraneous
occupations interferes seriously with his primary duties as a
Page No.# 3/3
Mauzadar, the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider whether
he should be retained in his office."
Let notice be issued, returnable by 4 weeks.
Shri N Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of all
the respondents.
Let extra copy of the writ petition be served upon the learned Standing
Counsel by Monday i.e. 18.12.2023.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer for interim
order, this Court upon consideration of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kanak Chandra Dutta (supra), more particularly
with regard to the observations that extraneous occupations if interferes
seriously with his primary duties as Mouzadar would be a relevant factor.
Further, the written instruction has also provided that the work order has
already been issued to the eligible bidder and the same has started and the
work is of urgent nature which is to be completed within a period of 6 months.
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order, at
this stage.
A copy of the written instruction dated 13.12.2023 is made a part of the
records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
