Janardan Kalita vs. The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had duly submitted the necessary documents as per Clause 8 of the Tender Notice. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the ST/SC certificate was not applicable to them as they did not belong to that community, and that the requirement for an Income Tax Clearance Certificate was not explicitly mentioned in Clause 8, but rather a Tax Clearance Certificate from the Block Development Officer, which the petitioner had submitted. The Court noted that the BTC had failed to produce any records or justifications for denying the settlement to the petitioner, the highest bidder, and awarding it to Respondent No. 7. This non-disclosure of reasons rendered the settlement with Respondent No. 7 illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and against public interest. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 settling the market with Respondent No. 7 was set aside. Considering that almost five months had elapsed and the petitioner was willing to deposit the proportionate amount for the remaining period, the Court directed that the settlement be offered to the petitioner, subject to them depositing the proportionate amount of their bid for the remaining period within 10 days. The petitioner was also granted liberty to seek the return of their original bank draft.

Facts

The petitioner, Janardan Kalita, filed a writ petition challenging the settlement of the Mazbat Weekly Open Market for the year 2023-24 with Respondent No. 7, who was the second highest bidder. The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) had invited bids, and the petitioner had submitted a bid of Rs. 6,52,790/-, while Respondent No. 7 bid Rs. 4,90,000/-. The petitioner alleged that the settlement with Respondent No. 7 was made in violation of tender conditions and without recording reasons, despite the petitioner being the highest bidder. The BTC authorities failed to produce records justifying the settlement with Respondent No. 7, even after a court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement of the Mazbat Weekly Open Market with Respondent No. 7, the second highest bidder, was arbitrary and illegal, violating Clause 11 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) which mandates recording reasons for not settling with the highest bidder? 2. Whether the petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents as per Clause 8 of the NIT, particularly concerning the ST/SC certificate and income tax clearance certificate? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that all necessary documents were submitted as per Clause 8 of the NIT and that they were the highest bidder. They contended that the settlement with Respondent No. 7 at a lower rate, without recording reasons, violated Clause 11 of the NIT and was done to favour Respondent No. 7. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The learned counsel for the BTC stated that they lacked instructions on the basis of the settlement with Respondent No. 7 and had not been furnished with the records as directed by the Court. - The learned counsel for the P&RD Department argued that the petitioner did not submit the income tax clearance certificate required by Clause 8(j) (erroneously referred to as 8(h)) of the NIT, thus Clause 11 was not applicable.