Ajoy Das vs State Of Assam And 3 Ors

1) Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned

counsel for the respondent no.3 and 4 and Mr. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for State respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2) On the ground that the NIT issued by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 under Memo No. S.M.B.53/2012-22 for settlement of Central Market situated at

Ward No. 8 for the year 2021-22 for 91/2 months from 15.06.2021 to 31.03.2022 on the ground that it was dehors the Rules, the present writ petition

has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the NIT does not contain any date of issue and that the last date of submission of tender

was on 10.06.2021 and the bids were to be opened on 11.06.2021, which was extended upto 28.06.2021. It is further submitted that in order to submit

the tender, one is required to submit several documents, but the Government Offices are closed or functioning with few skeleton staff due to Covid-19

Pandemic, which is admitted by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 by their undated notice extending the last date of submission of tender. Accordingly, it is

submitted that not only the issuance of undated tender was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and

Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam, which provides that one month’s previous notice is required to be given not later

than the 14th day of February in the financial year preceding that in which the lease is to take effect but due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner

could not collect documents to submit his bid.

4) The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and

4 submits that the there is nothing on record to show that as to which document he could not collect and that before which authority he had applied.

Moreover, it is submitted that as the matter has come up on motion, they could not obtain proper instructions, nonetheless, in paragraph 4 of the writ

petition, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the notice was issued on 10.05.2021, as such, as on 11.06.2021, the original date of opening of

tender, the parties had one month’s clear notice. Moreover, it is submitted that during this pandemic period, the issuance of tender had got delayed

and therefore, the tenders have been called for truncated period, and that without regular settlement, the respondents would have no option but to go

for ad-hoc arrangement, which does not help anyone.

5) It is seen that the petitioner has submitted one representation only on 11.06.2021 before the respondent no.4 that he could not collect documents

and that in his own representation, it has been admitted that apart from few number of Government officials, most of the Government offices are

closed due to Covid pandemic. However there is absence of any statement in the writ petition to show that on which particular date and at what time

he had visited any particular office and found it not entertaining applications for supply of requisite document. The admitted case of the petitioner is

that the time for submission of tender was extended till 28.06.2021, but there is nothing on record to show that after 11.06.2021, the petitioner had

made any effort to collect any document. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner is found to absolutely vague and bereft of material particulars. In

paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the NIT was issued on 10.05.2021, as such, the Court does not find any violation of the

provision of Rule 3 of Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam not only

because the date of submission of tender was originally 11.06.2021, but the date has been extended upto 28.06.2021. Moreover, the petitioner has not

annexed any notification from the Office of the District Magistrate- cum- Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar or from any other competent authority of

closing down the total functioning of Government offices, which is otherwise authorised to issue certificates of payment of municipal tax, income tax,

property tax, GST, land revenue paid certificate/ receipt, GST certificate, non-encumbrance certificate, etc. It is quite possible that a particular office

might have been functioning with low staff, truncated timing, etc., but it is not the case of the petitioner that he had visited any particular office and

that his application was refused to be accepted.

6) Accordingly, when there is no record that the petitioner had applied for supply of any document, the Court is unable to accept that the petitioner is a

person aggrieved. Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents.

7) However, before parting with the records, the Court is inclined to clarify that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from

participating in the tender process, if so advised.