Gauhati High Court
Dipankar Bayan vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 15 July, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010061762024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1677/2024
DIPANKAR BAYAN
S/O SRI BADYA NATH BAYAN
RESIDENT OF BARPETA SHANTIPUR, WARD NO. 20 PS AND DIST
BARPETA, ASSAM 781314
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ASSAM
, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
ASSAM 781301
4:THE PRESIDENT
BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD
BARPETA
ASSAM 781301
5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BARPETA MUNICIPAL BOARD
BARPETA
ASSAM 781301
Page No.# 2/4
6:SRI MINTU KUMAR DAS
S/O MANINDRA NATH DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAHATI
SHANTIPUR
BARPETA
ASSAM 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Choudhury
Advocate for the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Boruah, Mr. N. Alam, Mr. K. Gogoi
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 15.07.2024
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S.R. Boruah, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5; and Mr.
N. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
issuance of the order dated 22.02.2024 bearing No. BMR - 6/2023-24/888 as
well as any other consequential orders in terms with the tender notice dated
17.01.2024.
3. For appreciation of the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it
is relevant to take note of that a tender notice was issued by the Office of the
Barpeta Municipal Board for settlement of markets and parking lots of Barpeta
Municipality for collection of tax/toll/parking tax for the year 2024-2025 from
01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. Amongst the various terms included in the said
tender notice, one of such term included that the bidders are required to submit
a financially sound certificate issued by the concerned authority, financial
institution etc along with quotations. The petitioner along with various other
bidders have duly participated in the said tender process.
Page No.# 3/4
4. Pursuant to the said tender process being initiated, the concerned
respondent authorities have prepared a comparative statement of the tender
documents from the various bidders. The said comparative statement has been
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
From a perusal of the said comparative statement, it is seen that all the five
bidders have been technically responsive in submission of all the documents.
From the said comparative statement, it reveals that the five bidders quoted as
such:
Sri Preetirekha Das Dahati - Rs. 57,99,501.00
Sri Amen Das Rayotpar Rs. 52,99,501.00
Sri Mintu Kumar Das Rs. 45,99,501.00
Sri Dipankar Bayan Rs. 45,50,000.00 and
Sri Utpal Das Rs. 42,00,000.00.
5. It has been submitted at the bar that the bidders Sri Amen Das
Rayotpar and Sri Preetirekha Das declared that they are no longer interested
and as such the tender was settled in favour of the private respondent Sri Mintu
Kumar Das @ Rs. 45,99,501.00.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the respondent
authorities have committed illegality in holding that the private respondent No. 6
to be technically responsive inasmuch as the private respondent has not
submitted any certificate that he is financially sound issued by a concerned
authority, financial institution etc along with the quotation. It is under such
circumstances the instant writ petition has been filed.
7. This Court has duly taken note of the affidavit-in-opposition which
have been filed and from a perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it reveals that the certificate on the basis of which the
respondent No. 6 was held to be technically responsive is a certificate issued by
the Canara Bank stating that the respondent No. 6 is maintaining savings
account and his account is satisfactory. This Court has also perused the records
wherein it is also seen that all other tenderers have been issued the similar
certificate. It is however relevant to mention that the certificate which have
been issued to the petitioner there is a mention to the effect that the petitioner
is financially sound. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities have
construed the certificate which have been issued by the Canara Bank in favour
of the respondent No. 6 to be a certificate in compliance with Clause 4.
Additionally, it is also seen from records that there is also a surety given by one
Page No.# 4/4
Sri Manoj Kumar Das by pledging his house along with the valuation certificate.
8. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, as the
respondent authorities have construed the said certificate which is similarly
issued in respect of other tenderers also to be a certificate in compliance with
Clause 4, this Court in exercise of the powers under judicial review cannot sit
over the same for which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order bearing No. BMR-06/2023-24/888 dated 22.02.2024.
9. Accordingly this instant petition stands dismissed. The records which
have produced by the Mr. S.R Boruah, is returned.
10. Interim order if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
