AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition relates to settlement of Dibru Reserve Forest Fishery Mahal No. 2, under Tinsukia Range. It requires early disposal as a stay order was passed on 25.2.1986. This petition can also be disposed of even without calling for the records. Therefore, this case has been fixed today for hearing.
In pursuance of the notice dated 12.4.1985 (Annexure-I to the petition) regarding resettlement of Dibru Reserve Forest Fishery Mahal No. 2 under the Divisional Forest Officer, Tinsukia Range for the year 1985-87 calling for tenders from the intended lessees, four persons including the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 submitted their tenders. The names of those persons and their respective bids were:
Name Bid Money
Sri Abdul Mazid (Respondent-5) Rs. 4,56,666.00
M/s. Dibru Part II and III Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (Petitioner) Rs. 4,12,896.00
Sri Sudhir Ch. Das Rs. 3,02,000.00
Sri Harihar Das Rs. 1,93,044.00
The bid or offer of the Respondent-5 was Rs. 4,56,666.00 and it was the highest. The offer of the Petitioner was Rs. 4,12,896.00, There is no denial that the Respondent No. 3 was the competent authority under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coups and Mahals Rules 1977 for short the "Rules" for settlement of the said Fishery Mahal No. 2. The settlement was made in favor of the highest bidder, Respondent No. 5. The present writ Petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Governor of Assam claiming, inter alia, that the Petitioner being a Co-operative Society, it is entitled to preferential treatment under Rule 11 of the "Rules", The Governor dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner society was not entitled to any preferential treatment since the highest bid exceeded one lakh; hence this petition under Article 226 to this Court.
The first submission of Mr. C.C. Deka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the case of the Petitioner is covered by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules as the Petitioner is the Co-operative Society consisting of cent percent actual fishermen by profession belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate General, Nagaland has submitted that Rule 11 is not at all attracted as the recognised highest offer exceeds one lakh.
The question which arises is: What is the meaning of the expression "recognised highest offer" used in Rule 11 of the Rules? The relevant sub-rule of the Rule 11 of the "Rules" are:
Preference and concession in settlement with tenderers belong to Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes,
(1) * * * *
(2) The preference and the concession shall also be admissible in the following manner to a Co-operative Society provided not less than 80 per cent of the members thereof are persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes and provided the recognised highest offer for the coupe or the mahal does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh.
(a) If the offer from the above mentioned Co-operative Society is not below 90 per cent of the recognised highest offer, the coupe or the mahal shall be settled with such Co-operative Society at its own offer.
(b) Even if the offer from the Co-operative Society is below 90 per cent of the recognised highest offer, the coupe or the mahal shall be may at the discretion of the competent authority be settled with such Co-operative Society at an amount 10 per cent less than the recognised highest.
(c) As between individual member of the categories mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) above and a Co-operative Society mentioned in this Sub-rule the Co-operative Society shall be given preference over the individuals.
(3) * * * *
[Emphasis added]
Under Rule 10 of the "Rules" the highest tender will generally be accepted but it shall not be obligatory on the part of the settling authority to accept the highest or any tender. The settling authority after considering a great variety of factors worthy for consideration including excessive or less bid will decide which of the offer is to be accepted. The bid or offer so decided to be accepted is the recognised offer. If the recognised offer is higher than the other offers that recognised offer is the recognised highest offer. At this stage the recognised highest offer in not to be accepted as the acceptance of such an offer is subject to the provision of Rule 11 relating to preference and concession as provided there under.
In the present case, out of the four persons the bid of the Respondent No. 5 Abdul Mazid was the highest as already stated. His bid of Rs. 4,56,666.00 was decided to be accepted. Therefore, the recognised highest offer was the offer of the Respondent No. 5 which was more than a lakh. In such a situation, the Petitioner was not entitled to preferential treatment and the concession as provided under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules. Since the Petitioner was not entitled to the preferential treatment and concession, the offer of the Respondent No. 5 was accepted and the fishery was settled with the Respondent No. 5.
The last submission of Mr. Deka is that the Petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority. Therefore, there was a violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Deka has referred to us the decision of this Court as reported in Maneswar Basumatary v. Niranjan Bachak (1976 ALR 294). Even assuming that the Petitioner was required to be heard as submitted by Mr. Deka, about which we are not expressing any opinion, if the order of the appellate authority is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being beard, it will not serve any useful purpose as the appeal has to fail in view of our conclusion that in the present case the Petitioner society was not entitled to any preference and/or concession under Rule 11. In this view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Deka has no force.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not in a position to exercise our jurisdiction in this writ petition as prayed for. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition, but we do not impose any costs to the Petitioner. The stay order granted earlier stands vacated.